User Tag List

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22
Results 211 to 218 of 218

Thread: Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans (Lazaridis et al. 2017)204 days old

  1. #211
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    Your favourite (((Skype))) Semitic Duwa's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-26
    Posts
    3,190
    Location
    In your closet
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1-Z18271 (YSC234+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    (((Skype))) + British
    Ethnicity
    (((Shasu of Yhw)))
    Politics
    Pump & Trump
    Religion
    Jehovah's Fitness
    Israel Israel Star of David Israel Israel

    Default

    As the authors clearly state, the Mycenaeans can be modeled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations, this remains the most parsimonious model so far:



    The real question is whether the Steppe admixture was already diluted when the Proto-Greeks arrived in the Aegean, in which case they might well have resembled Hungary_BA. This is actually possible, however an arrival of undiluted Steppe_LMBA migrants isn't entirely unconvincing either, I mean we did see several samples Bronze Age samples in Mathieson et al.'s last paper on SE Europe that looked like they'd arrived straight from Eastern Europe, including a LBA sample from Bulgaria (I2163) that carried Y-DNA haplogroup R1a-Z93 and was dated circa 1750-1625 calBCE which is congruent with the arrival of the earliest Greek-speaking communities.


    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Those Bronze Age samples are just red herrings to distract you from the actual arrivals of populations with Semitic ancestry. Don’t take the bait by focusing on the wrong samples, lol. He is passing off Bronze Age Levantines with no evidence of strong predynastic input, as “Semites“. This way, he can flip it around and say Proto-Semitic speakers and predynastics were more or less identical to the Bronze Age Levantines sampled so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Semitic Duwa

    Wonder what the resident Proto-Semite has to say about this. I thought unmixed Egyptians were supposed to be Abusir with less/zero Chl?

    In your view, does this prove you wrong, or is it just a coincidence () that M1 is absent in one of the three subsamples from Abusir, and rare overall?

    And don’t change your signature now, please. I’m looking forward to you looking more and more incompetent as more aDNA is published. Wish there was a way to speed this up. But the extra wait and seeing you with your pants down every day, kinda has its own appeal, too.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Semitic Duwa For This Useful Post:

    DDBG (2018-01-23), EliasAlucard (2018-01-22), Power77 (2018-01-22), Targum (2018-01-22), tauromenion (2018-01-23)

  3. #212
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist tauromenion's Avatar
    Last Online
    2018-02-20 @ 23:49
    Join Date
    2012-08-09
    Posts
    7,276
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    H
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Phenotype
    Mediterranid
    Politics
    Moderate.
    Italy Sicily-II Greece Portugal Israel Star of David Poland Cape Verde

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDBG View Post
    "well-preserved Eastern Mediterranean population" needs some elaboration, however, since they weren't all exactly the same either. We know the Mycenaeans were very high in Anatolian Neolithic ancestry and had considerable Iran Neolithic type of admixture and ancient Sicily will quite possibly be similar overall. So with that as a starting assumption, modern Sicily (and Malta) on the other hand seems to have considerable ancestry from populations heavy in Levantine Neolithic that replaced a decent chunk of the local ancestry. Anatolia and Levant Neolithic are of course closer in distance than Anatolia Neolithic and steppe are*** but it doesn't mean that there has been less admixture in Sicily (excepting the possibility of some different Neolithic-Bronze Age stream reaching the island already), just that it was overall more Near Eastern as opposed to overall more Northeast European as in Greece. And I say "overall more" in both cases since Sicilians too seem to have some extra steppe, though of an apparently more western (Italo-Celtic?) source, and mainland Greeks (at least the more southern ones) seem to have some extra Near Eastern ancestry compared to the Mycenaean samples. Sicilians imo don't seem to be able to be modelled with much more Mycenaean-like ancestry (i.e. our best currently available proxy for Bronze Age Southeast Europe, along with some Hungary_BA samples) than mainland Greeks overall, despite being less distant due to their different subsequent admixture.

    The question I would have is when you propose most of the extra Levantine-like admixture arrived in Sicily and Malta. It also extends onto the mainland south as well, especially Calabria and southern Campania/Naples area but when did it arrive? My guess is that it was not one migration but reflects an accumulation of different historical events including, but not limited to, Phoenician and Carthaginian settlement and migration of people from the Near East under both Byzantine and Arab rule. The additional Italo-Celtic admixture could either be due to Crusades-era settlement from the mainland, Normans, or from the original Italic populations of the island.

    About southern Greece, they occupy a distinct position -- they are neither as Levantine as Sicilians/Maltese, but neither as Balto-Slavic as northern and inland Greeks from places like Macedonia or Thessaly. On the other hand, most Aegean islanders are genetically very similar to Sicilians and the question is, why? There is no mass historical migration from the Near East to explain this, so it makes me wonder if it is simply due to less NE European type admixture than what we find on the mainland.

    Mycenaeans to me seem to not perfectly represent any population still alive, and this is clear to me. I disagreed with those who said mainland Greeks are very close to Mycenaeans because admixture shows to me they are rather very different.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tauromenion For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2018-01-23), voyager (2018-01-23)

  5. #213
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 23:37
    Join Date
    2017-08-08
    Posts
    15
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tauromenion View Post
    The question I would have is when you propose most of the extra Levantine-like admixture arrived in Sicily and Malta. It also extends onto the mainland south as well, especially Calabria and southern Campania/Naples area but when did it arrive? My guess is that it was not one migration but reflects an accumulation of different historical events including, but not limited to, Phoenician and Carthaginian settlement and migration of people from the Near East under both Byzantine and Arab rule. The additional Italo-Celtic admixture could either be due to Crusades-era settlement from the mainland, Normans, or from the original Italic populations of the island.

    About southern Greece, they occupy a distinct position -- they are neither as Levantine as Sicilians/Maltese, but neither as Balto-Slavic as northern and inland Greeks from places like Macedonia or Thessaly. On the other hand, most Aegean islanders are genetically very similar to Sicilians and the question is, why? There is no mass historical migration from the Near East to explain this, so it makes me wonder if it is simply due to less NE European type admixture than what we find on the mainland.

    Mycenaeans to me seem to not perfectly represent any population still alive, and this is clear to me. I disagreed with those who said mainland Greeks are very close to Mycenaeans because admixture shows to me they are rather very different.
    You don't necessarily need a distinct "historical migration" to the Aegean when both sides of the Aegean had (increasingly) been part of the same ethnolinguistic area from the Iron Age down to the ongoing Turkification of Anatolia from the 11th to 15th centuries. Back and forth movement from the two areas might be the case, especially since Levantine ancestry seems to increase in Anatolia over time (already in the Bronze Age samples). We actually don't know how high in Iran the Aegean islands were in the Bronze Age, even. In that regard, they might have been closer to the mainland or to Anatolia to which they're geographically closer. We don't actually have any early Sicilian samples either, to see whether some other, more basal stream of Neolithic ancestry entered the area either so it's possible that the historical Near Eastern ancestry it received is smaller than it looks like currently. As for the Peloponnese, it was both less affected by the Slavic migrations and more by the Albanian migrations than the rest of mainland Greece. It also had more ties with areas like Crete and the nearby Aegean islands. As such, it makes perfect sense that it's both less "Balto-Slavic" and more "Near Eastern".

    The one Greek area, excepting Cyprus where it must have been "always" the case, that seems to have Levantine ("Natufian"-heavy as opposed to Iran-heavy) ancestry close to Sicilian levels is Crete and it had contacts with Phoenicians and with the Saracens who ruled the island for a short period before the Byzantine reconquest, similar to Sicily with its Phoenician and Moorish ties, so it's probably easier to explain. As Duwa has pointed out and I'm sure you'll agree, European Jews, Sicilians and Aegean islanders cluster in the same general area but due to somewhat different historical events via somewhat similar populations.

    As to your last point, no Bronze Age population tested so far "perfectly represents" the modern inhabitants of its regions despite showing most similarities to them overall, so that's to be expected. We see an increase of steppe ancestry in both Southern Europe (Iberia and the Balkans so far) and the Levant since the Bronze Age, a decrease of WHG ancestry in much of Northern Europe (look at Unetice or Wezlin), an increase of sub-Saharan ancestry in North Africa and so on. Of course some will be closer than others, depending on the kind and quantity of admixture they received; for example, modern Muslim Egyptians share much less drift with ancient Egyptians than modern southern Europeans do because they received a very "exotic" sort of admixture from a Eurasian perspective. The Minoans and Myceaneans we have were very basal and basically at the tail-end of modern Europe. Unless the Aegean islands at the time prove to have even more Iran, the Minoans must have been the most "Near Eastern" population to have ever had their ethnogenesis in Europe, alongside European Jews.
    Last edited by DDBG; 2018-01-23 at 23:14.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to DDBG For This Useful Post:

    voyager (2018-01-23)

  7. #214
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 23:08
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    938
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    nteresting, seems like the Mycenaeans were quite the wogs So the proto-Greeks basically only exerted a linguistic elite dominance effect on the Aegean?
    Proto Greeks themselves were wogs IMO. They should be genetically quite similar to the Mycenaeans.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-02-13 at 01:54.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Arch Hades For This Useful Post:

    Semitic Duwa (2018-02-13)

  9. #215
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    Your favourite (((Skype))) Semitic Duwa's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-26
    Posts
    3,190
    Location
    In your closet
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1-Z18271 (YSC234+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    (((Skype))) + British
    Ethnicity
    (((Shasu of Yhw)))
    Politics
    Pump & Trump
    Religion
    Jehovah's Fitness
    Israel Israel Star of David Israel Israel

    Default

    Now that the data for Mathieson et al.'s last paper has been released, we can try using some of the Balkans_BA samples to proxy the Steppe admixture in the Mycenaean samples. I've decided to use I2163, the BA sample from Bulgaria I mentioned above, this sample is a very good candidate for the (Pre-)Proto-Greeks.

    Using G25 (scaled):

    [1] "distance%=2.5293"

    Mycenaean

    Minoan_Lasithi,82.6
    Balkans_BA:I2163,17.4


    Notice how closely this fit resembles the authors' admixture modelling:



    We're probably not dealing with a happy coincidence here.

    Using Balkans_BA instead, we obtain the following fit:

    [1] "distance%=3.031"

    Mycenaean

    Minoan_Lasithi,63.8
    Balkans_BA,36.2


    The first fit is the most parsimonious one so far.
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; Today at 03:45.


    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Those Bronze Age samples are just red herrings to distract you from the actual arrivals of populations with Semitic ancestry. Don’t take the bait by focusing on the wrong samples, lol. He is passing off Bronze Age Levantines with no evidence of strong predynastic input, as “Semites“. This way, he can flip it around and say Proto-Semitic speakers and predynastics were more or less identical to the Bronze Age Levantines sampled so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Semitic Duwa

    Wonder what the resident Proto-Semite has to say about this. I thought unmixed Egyptians were supposed to be Abusir with less/zero Chl?

    In your view, does this prove you wrong, or is it just a coincidence () that M1 is absent in one of the three subsamples from Abusir, and rare overall?

    And don’t change your signature now, please. I’m looking forward to you looking more and more incompetent as more aDNA is published. Wish there was a way to speed this up. But the extra wait and seeing you with your pants down every day, kinda has its own appeal, too.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Semitic Duwa For This Useful Post:

    Dohan. (Today), EliasAlucard (Today), Targum (Today)

  11. #216
    Established Member
    Check my butt
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2013-12-31
    Posts
    289
    Location
    West London
    Gender

    Default

    Maniots are very close to Myceneans. Their Eurogenes show them as 10% more North European admixed than South Italians , the same is true for Eurogenes of some Ionian Islanders . This is either due to i) Slavic ancestry left behind by tribes like Ezirites and Melingoi but it's known Maniots purged the Taygetos from the Slavs or il) Dorian invasion and period from Myceneans to Classical Greece bringing an additional layer of North European admixture. Both are plausible , with Ancient DNA from Iron Age Greece would definitely help measuring the admixture process.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dohan. For This Useful Post:

    Semitic Duwa (Today), Targum (Today)

  13. #217
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    Your favourite (((Skype))) Semitic Duwa's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-26
    Posts
    3,190
    Location
    In your closet
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1-Z18271 (YSC234+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    (((Skype))) + British
    Ethnicity
    (((Shasu of Yhw)))
    Politics
    Pump & Trump
    Religion
    Jehovah's Fitness
    Israel Israel Star of David Israel Israel

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dohan. View Post
    Maniots are very close to Myceneans. Their Eurogenes show them as 10% more North European admixed than South Italians , the same is true for Eurogenes of some Ionian Islanders . This is either due to i) Slavic ancestry left behind by tribes like Ezirites and Melingoi but it's known Maniots purged the Taygetos from the Slavs or il) Dorian invasion and period from Myceneans to Classical Greece bringing an additional layer of North European admixture. Both are plausible , with Ancient DNA from Iron Age Greece would definitely help measuring the admixture process.
    There's an upcoming study that will include Iron Age samples from Ambracia, so we'll soon get to see what the Iron Age Greeks looked like. I doubt they'll be very different from the Mycenaeans we already have, if anything they'll probably be closer to present-day Maniots and Aegean Greeks.


    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Those Bronze Age samples are just red herrings to distract you from the actual arrivals of populations with Semitic ancestry. Don’t take the bait by focusing on the wrong samples, lol. He is passing off Bronze Age Levantines with no evidence of strong predynastic input, as “Semites“. This way, he can flip it around and say Proto-Semitic speakers and predynastics were more or less identical to the Bronze Age Levantines sampled so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Semitic Duwa

    Wonder what the resident Proto-Semite has to say about this. I thought unmixed Egyptians were supposed to be Abusir with less/zero Chl?

    In your view, does this prove you wrong, or is it just a coincidence () that M1 is absent in one of the three subsamples from Abusir, and rare overall?

    And don’t change your signature now, please. I’m looking forward to you looking more and more incompetent as more aDNA is published. Wish there was a way to speed this up. But the extra wait and seeing you with your pants down every day, kinda has its own appeal, too.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Semitic Duwa For This Useful Post:

    Dohan. (Today)

  15. #218
    Established Member
    Check my butt
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2013-12-31
    Posts
    289
    Location
    West London
    Gender

    Default

    i agree and this is where my doubts lie.

    The small subpopulation structure in between outer Mani (West Taygetos) and Inner Mani for example seem to be relatively recent to me (Middle Ages no more).

    So while some people claim there could have been an additional layer of North European admixture with the Dorian invasion and the 'Dark age' period , it's put some doubts as well

    i have a full list of Maniots surname from the Outer Mani migrants to Cargese (Corsica) and some surname show Slavic influence (Schiavoni , Voulgaris , Servo) so I am putting doubt in all Maniots being totally Slavic-frei.
    Last edited by Dohan.; Today at 18:21.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Dohan. For This Useful Post:

    Semitic Duwa (Today)

Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2017-09-05, 23:43
  2. A genetic study of Jamaica's West African origins
    By jonboyclem in forum Americas
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2017-01-05, 22:31
  3. The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers (Lazaridis 2016)
    By Wojewoda in forum General Genetics Discussion
    Replies: 353
    Last Post: 2016-11-04, 22:29
  4. Making sense of genetic origins - help?
    By ben89b in forum Member Results
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2014-11-07, 14:13
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-06-21, 14:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<