Talk:Mycenaean Greece

Large scale improvement

I'm afraid that some sections, especially the first three ones, need to be written from scratch: "Mycenaean civilization" appears to be an extensive summary about what will follow in the text, "Historical correlations" makes extensive use of hard to understand archaeological terms (not to mention both of them lack inlines). Even "Identity" needs to be backed with desent (post-80s) bibliography. I plan to make some large-scale improvements.Alexikoua (talk)

chronology

All the dates have to be revised to further back in time. Radiocarbon testing of olives found in pyroclastic flows at Thera put the explosion at 1630 BCE give or take a few years. 100.15.117.34 (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Genetics

Template:Ping Thanks for your recent contributions. I was planning to add a paragraph summarizing the study by Skourtanioti et al. (2023) back in January 2023 (when i originally added the reference to the article), but forgot about it. Furthermore, there are some issues with some of your edits that are based on the two studies by Lazaridis et al. (2022); specifically, the number of the new Mycenaean samples that were analysed being 24, and the steppe-related ancestry for two samples from Kastrouli and the Palace of Nestor being and , respectively.

Regarding the number of the samples, depending on which of the two studies we look at, the new Mycenaean samples appear to have been either 21 (per Fig. 1 in A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia [2022]; 25 with previously published ones) or 25 (per supplementary Data S1 in The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe [2022]; though, also 25 per Fig. 5E which seems to include both previously published and newly analysed samples). Taking into account that the previously published Mycenaean samples were four, i believe that 21 is the correct number for the new Mycenaean samples that were analysed.

As for the two aforementioned samples with the highest proportion of EHG ancestry from Kastrouli and the Palace of Nestor, i believe that their approximate steppe-related ancestry constitutes improper editorial synthesis. Indeed, the claims are plausible and even corroborated by the following quote from A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia (2022):

• Template:Tq

Having said that, this is a general observation, and we cannot be certain about the steppe-related ancestry of individual samples from different locations and time periods. Take for example the Kastrouli sample with an EHG proportion of ; you assumed a matching amount of CHG ancestry, and thus stated that the individual probably had steppe-related ancestry. However, on the same page (240) from the supplementary text of The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe (2022) we see that the sample actually had CHG ancestry. Wouldn't it be better to remove these figures? Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"However, on the same page (240) from the supplementary text of The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe (2022) we see that the sample actually had 12±7% CHG ancestry."

Thanks, I missed that. I'll change the text.

Regarding the following:

"The potential source of this ancestry included related groups from Serbia (Early Bronze Age), Croatia (Middle Bronze Age), Italy (Early and Middle Bronze Age), 'Western Steppe Eneolithic-Bronze Age', and 'Germany Corded Ware'; the latter two were found to be the most adequate sources, but "at the moment it is not possible to more closely identify the region(s) from where this genetic affinity was derived.""

I left out 'Serbia, Croatia and Italy' because according to the study: "Overall, proximal sources like EBA Serbia, MBA Croatia and BA Italy failed to model both mainland and island groups (P ≤ 5.80 × 10−3), whereas models with Central or Eastern European sources remained adequate." Ario1234 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read the last quote you shared, which pertains to the results that are summarized in Fig. 4b; however, the group of Crete LBA is different from the Islands LBA group (Euboea, Aegina, Salamis, and Cyclades), and in fact we read right after:

• Template:Tq

Furthermore, the study later also suggested that Crete LBA group C could have received steppe-related ancestry from both the Greek mainland, as well as more distant regions, such as Italy. Besides these, i also took into account the results of Supplementary Table 8; i included the relevant quote in my last edit (diff). Specifically:

• Template:Tq

I understand why you left out the aforementioned part, but it implies that there were only two potential proximal sources for the steppe-related ancestry of the Mycenaean (LBA Aegean) groups, which is not what the study concluded; as was summarized above, some groups could have received it from more than one proximal source. Lastly, i did emphasize that the Central and Eastern European proximal sources were found to be the most adequate of all. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the Thera eruption belong in the article?

Hello Botterweg14, and I figured we had better discuss this! I certainly understand your qualms, and as originally written, I would agree that it does not represent the current state of scholarship--especially as to dating the eruption. However, the eruption and possibly associated tsunamis seem very much still "in the mix" with regard to explanations for Minoan decline, and in turn, an upturn in Mycenaean fortunes. I obviously know the difficulty of proving a negative, but can you point me to places which might rule out the theory? I am finding a lot of qualified references in the mode of "it has been proposed that...." but, as I say, it still seems like at least a notable possibility. That seems on its face WP:DUE for inclusion to me. That said, my in-depth research days are well behind me and I would be happy to see newer evidence! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for starting the discussion. My objection is really to including a "Thera eruption, therefore LM IB destructions, therefore Mycenaean conquest" narrative, without an up-to-date source specifically for that narrative. Some of the pieces of that narrative resemble ideas that are still considered possible, but that overall understanding of Aegean history seems to be totally out as far as I can tell.

Regarding the impact of the eruption on the Minoans, I just rewrote this so you can have a look there. Among the sources I used, the most nuanced view of things is in Chapter 8 of McEnroe's "Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Minoan Bronze Age". Regarding the putative Mycenaean takeover, I don't have sources at my fingertips unless you'll count "a very drunk Indo-Europeanist I met at a party, p.c.". But if you will grant my use of that source, I gather that pretty much all the hypotheses are on the table, including the possibility that the sudden shift from Linear A to Linear B masks a longer and gradual influx of Mycenaean people and culture. Botterweg14 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Identity

In the 'Identity' section, this statement would seem to be inaccurate: '...the script records the advent of an Indo-European language in the Aegean region in contrast to unrelated prior languages spoken in adjoining areas.' However, a number of Indo-European languages pre-date Proto-Greek in the region, members of the 'Anatolian group of Indo-European languages: Hittite, Palaic, Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian (see Luwian language), Lycian, Lydian, Carian, and possibly Pisidian and Sidetic.' [Britannica Online]. Perhaps referring solely to mainland Greece would be more accurate. I'm not a specialist in this area, however. RobotBoy66 (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this! Remsense ‥ 论 13:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)