Ancient Mycenaean and Minoan DNA - Not Indo-European?

[Dr Frasier Crane]

Forgive me for my ignorance on this matter.

I understand that the Mycenaeans had steppe input, more so than the Minoans, but overall would you say that both ethnic groups are lacking the ancestry to be considered actual Indo-Europeans? Since they also had distinctive Iranian and Caucasus DNA and that the Minoans, at least, had more Levantine DNA (I think Sikeliot mentioned this on another thread), would they be more akin to Anatolian and Cypriot Greeks who have more West Asian ancestry than mainland Greeks today? Should these early Greeks be classified as 'Near-Eastern' rather than 'European'?

P.S. Not a troll, just ignorant on the subject.

Correction - I meant just European. Was unaware Indo-European relates to language solely.

[Dibran]

It all depends on what you consider Indo-European. Their autosomal makeup or their Y-DNA? Autosomally speaking I would agree, they seem more Neolithic with some Steppe input. Like typical south/southeast europeans. Idk what their Ydna lines were though so I couldnt say.

[Dick]

Centum = early neolithic farmers from Near east. Satem = Steppe/Yamna. Both are IE and had various ydna's. It's not rocket science.

[nightrider+]

Mycenaeans, unlike most other peoples of their time considered Indo-European, have actually left behind concrete evidence that they were Indo-European.

[Sikeliot]

Mycenaeans were genetically like the equivalent of Sicilians with around 25% Sardinian, so they were indeed more distinctly "Mediterranean" in that they descended from the Neolithic Anatolian population who spread throughout Europe and remains most purely preserved in Sardinia. This does not make them Near Eastern to me.

[Lavrentis]

Why did you create a sockpuppet just to ask this question, OP?

[Dr Frasier Crane]

Idk what their Ydna lines were though so I couldnt say

From what I remember, they were mostly J2 and G

Centum = early neolithic farmers from Near east. Satem = Steppe/Yamna. Both are IE and had various ydna's. It's not rocket science.

That seems to be a rather gnomic response, since those classifications are primarily utilised for languages. But by your logic, do you consider Iranians to be European since they have a Satem language? I doubt it. And since neolithic farmers, to my understanding, are Levantine in make-up, do you consider Levantines to be European too?

Mycenaeans, unlike most other peoples of their time considered Indo-European, have actually left behind concrete evidence that they were Indo-European.

I assume you mean linguistically, but if not, what? Their DNA doesn't seem to be.

[Dr Frasier Crane]

Why did you create a sockpuppet just to ask this question, OP?

Sorry, I am new at this. I'll delete the thread and start it again somewhere else, if you'd like.

[nightrider+]

I assume you mean linguistically, but if not, what? Their DNA doesn't seem to be.

IE is a language family, nothing else. No such thing as Indo-European DNA.

[Dr Frasier Crane]

Mycenaeans were genetically like the equivalent of Sicilians with around 25% Sardinian, so they were indeed more distinctly "Mediterranean" in that they descended from the Neolithic Anatolian population who spread throughout Europe and remains most purely preserved in Sardinia. This does not make them Near Eastern to me.

But you always talk about how the original Sicilians had a increased Levantine input?