Alexander the great

[Sprinkles]

This is so stupid, i can't fathom the reason that brought you to this conclusion.

Maciamo, attributing the kinds of northern europe (haplogroup r) to the balkans (haplogroup I, J, E) is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit a logical reply. The only reason you do this is to your own worldly desire. There is no evidence of it. The evidence is that you, a Belgian, want to impose your stupidity on a region you have no control over.

Stop making yourself look twisted and arrogant.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Macedons did not have blone hair and blue eyes, this is a myth created by northern europeans to explain why ancients greeks did what they did by saying they were pure "ayran" race like they *thought* they were in north europe.

View attachment 4905

That was made in 100 BC, though not during his lifetime, I think the creators had an idea what macedons looked like.

Indeed, some of these nordicists say and write the silliest things.

 

[Maciamo]

Macedons did not have blone hair and blue eyes, this is a myth created by northern europeans to explain why ancients greeks did what they did by saying they were pure "ayran" race like they *thought* they were in north europe.

View attachment 4905

That was made in 100 BC, though not during his lifetime, I think the creators had an idea what macedons looked like.

Indeed, some of these nordicists say and write the silliest things.

It is actually the Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) who described Alexander as blond and blue-eyed :

"Alexander had light skin, blond hair, and melting blue eyes. A sweet natural fragrance came from his body, so strong that it perfumed his clothes."

This was somehow corroborated by the Greek historian Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - 160), who described Alexander as:

"The strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky".

It is therefore possible that Alexander had one brown eye and one blue eye.

Anyway I would give more credibility to the two Greek historians, because they were Greek intellectuals, while the person(s) who made the mosaic was a Roman artist, and artists aren't usually known for their historical accuracies.

 

[DejaVu]

My friend is R1b1b2 and I am G2a3b1a (our parents are from Macedonia Region = ethnic Macedonians). Both of these haplogroups can be found in the Balkans but both are minority there. Yes Maciamo knows what he talks about.
The description of Alexander matches me alot same/lookalike bodytype same/lookalike facial structure as the face statue made of Lysippos and similarities to the other statues. Coincidence?
This does not have to be we are related just mention it that there can be something relevant in the discussion.
Probably many others can identify as same as a statue and that cant be evidence of haplogroup belonging.
What haplogroup Alexander is? Unknown hard to guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Roman copy of a statue by Lysippos, Louvre Museum. Plutarch felt sculptures by Lysippos were the most faithful.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/AlexandreLouvre.jpg

 

[Maciamo]

No Maciamo there wasn't Hindu-style segregation in Greece (or Greek Macedonia) you claim to be a scientist and you don't know that?

First of all, I don't see why being a scientist confers knowledge about history. Second, even historians cannot know everything about history. Third, I never "claimed" to be a scientist. This appellation doesn't mean anything to me. There are all sorts of "scientists". There are hundreds of specialities. Then a scientist could be either a researcher or a practician (like a doctor) or just someone who studied a scientific subject at university but doesn't necessarily work in a scientific field. These are all completely different things. That's why I would never refer to myself simply as a "scientist". Too vague. Meaningless.

Now to the point debated.

How could you possibly know that no Hindu-style apartheid happened in Greece following the PIE invasions ? Apart from archaeology (pots, weapons, graves), nothing is known about Greek society when the PIE invaded Europe from the steppes (a long process of successive waves of migrations that last from circa 3500 to 1500 BCE) We do know about the Mycenaeans who were the first Greek rulers who spoke an Indo-European language and had arts and customs clearly linked to the Pontic steppes (axes, fortified palace, underground burial chambers like the kurgan, etc). The Mycenaeans did practice a sort of apartheid between the elite/nobility and the the da-mo (demos, populace), i.e. the craftsmen, farmers, and merchants. This was followed by a long dark age in Greek history (1200-800 BCE) about which virtually nothing is known of the way people lived. The most likely scenario in my eyes is that the Indo-Europeans behaved similarly in all the regions they conquered. The similitude in culture, religion, language and lifestyle are so striking between Bronze-age Celts, Germans, Slavs and Hindus, over 2000 years after they split from each others, that it is reasonable to suppose that the organisation of society was roughly the same too. I have little doubts about the Mycenaeans, and am convinced that the genetic testing of Mycenaean graves will confirm that their elite remained predominantly Indo-European, not indigenous Greek. It is however much harder to estimate whether this elitist segregation continued through the Dark Ages or not, and if so whether it lasted until the time of Alexander.

Your reply is typical of people who cannot read properly (quite a few people here it seems). I never claimed to know. I just wrote:

"If the Macedonian elite descended from the Macedonian branch of the Indo-Europeans, and ["if" implied] the elite kept a strict apartheid with the conquered population until the time of Alexander (possible considering that Hindus have managed to do it for the last 4500 years), then the most likely haplogroups for Alexander the Great and other ancient Macedonian nobility was R1a1a, R1b1b2 or G2a3b1."

There are two strict conditions to my hypothesis:

1) the Macedonian elite must be descended from the Indo-Europeans
2) this Macedonian elite must have kept a Hindu-style apartheid for thousands of years

If both conditions are met, then (and only then) there is a very high probability (but never 100%) that Alexander belonged to R1a1a, R1b1b2 or G2a3b1. I know that is a lot of if's, which makes it only a remote hypothesis. I never claimed otherwise. There are only people here who can't read (you and Sprinkles) and mistakenly assume that I have reached an irrevocable conclusion, when I have just presented a mere conditional hypothesis.

And by the way nobility does not come from a straight line for thousand of years, there are countless examples of Kings in ancient Greece who came from abroad and substituted previous Kings of native origin. You seem to think that ancient Greek kings belonged to what you call Indo-European rulling class but this is absurd...Alexander claimed descend from Temenus of Argos who belonged to the Heraclidae (they considered themselves descendants of Hercules who was a Danaan).

Because descending from Hercules, a mythological figure, is less absurd in your eyes ?!

 

[Elias2]

It is actually the Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) who described Alexander as blond and blue-eyed :

"Alexander had light skin, blond hair, and melting blue eyes. A sweet natural fragrance came from his body, so strong that it perfumed his clothes."

This was somehow corroborated by the Greek historian Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - 160), who described Alexander as:

"The strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky".

It is therefore possible that Alexander had one brown eye and one blue eye.

Anyway I would give more credibility to the two Greek historians, because they were Greek intellectuals, while the person(s) who made the mosaic was a Roman artist, and artists aren't usually known for their historical accuracies.

Well here is a mosaic done in the 3rd century B.C., very close to his lifetime;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlexanderAndLion.jpg

It's not very detailed but his hair looks brown and not very light. His eyes you can't really tell. Not a good piece of evidence but one non-the-less.

 

[Maciamo]

Well here is a mosaic done in the 3rd century B.C., very close to his lifetime;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlexanderAndLion.jpg

It's not very detailed but his hair looks brown and not very light. His eyes you can't really tell. Not a good piece of evidence but one non-the-less.

Can't tell the hair and eyes colour either. And judging from the appearance of the lion, it is not very realistic anyway. For facial traits nothing beats a good classical Greco-Roman statue.

 

[kostop]

Sorry for interfering, but Plutarch never wrote that Alexander had blue eyes or blond hair. What he mentions is:

The statues that gave the best representation of Alexander's person, were those of Lysippus, (by whom alone he would suffer his image to be made,) those peculiarities which many of his successors afterwards and his friends used to affect to imitate, the inclination of his head a little on one side towards his left shoulder, and his melting eye, having been expressed by this artist with great exactness. But Apelles, who drew him with thunderbolts in his hand, made his complexion browner and darker than it was naturally; for he was fair and of a light color, passing into ruddiness in his face and upon his breast. Aristoxenus in his Memoirs tells us that a most agreeable odor exhaled from his skin, and that his breath and body all over was so fragrant as to perfume the clothes which he wore next him;

Anyway, Alexander had heterochromia according to some sources, therefore his two eyes were of different colours (or at least shades). Blue, green, brown eyes and their combinations existed in ancient Greece (although dark brown eyes were the most common) just as they do in modern Greece, therefore any finding would not be surprising.

Best,
Elias

 

[archaiocapilos]

How could you possibly know that no Hindu-style apartheid happened in Greece following the PIE invasions ? Apart from archaeology (pots, weapons, graves), nothing is known about Greek society when the PIE invaded Europe from the steppes (a long process of successive waves of migrations that last from circa 3500 to 1500 BCE) We do know about the Mycenaeans who were the first Greek rulers who spoke an Indo-European language and had arts and customs clearly linked to the Pontic steppes (axes, fortified palace, underground burial chambers like the kurgan, etc). The Mycenaeans did practice a sort of apartheid between the elite/nobility and the the da-mo (demos, populace), i.e. the craftsmen, farmers, and merchants.

Since we have not any Y-DNA of Mycenean royalty extracted your argument of them being R1a1a is baseless...After all the Myceneans settled in Peloponnesus, the region of Greece with the lowest percentage of R1a1a (5-6%).

"If the Macedonian elite descended from the Macedonian branch of the Indo-Europeans, and ["if" implied] the elite kept a strict apartheid with the conquered population until the time of Alexander (possible considering that Hindus have managed to do it for the last 4500 years), then the most likely haplogroups for Alexander the Great and other ancient Macedonian nobility was R1a1a, R1b1b2 or G2a3b1."

There are two strict conditions to my hypothesis:

1) the Macedonian elite must be descended from the Indo-Europeans
2) this Macedonian elite must have kept a Hindu-style apartheid for thousands of years

There's also a third strict condition, that the Indo-Europeans were R1a1a, R1b1b2 or G2a3b1

 

[archaiocapilos]

Because descending from Hercules, a mythological figure, is less absurd in your eyes ?!

Well, if the Indo-European rulling class kept a Hindu-style segregation as you claim then I'm sure they knew exactly who they descend from. The fact that Heracles was a Mythological figure connected with the Danaans and depicted as Mediterranean (dark skinned, grypos with curly hair) makes it clear that Macedonian nobility didn't identify with blonde, pale steppe Northerners as you SUPPOSE...
Ancient Greek nobility was not of Nordic or West European race Maciamo, they were Mediterraneans, Alpines and Dinarics like modern Greeks. So their haplogroups could be E-V13, R1b1b2, R1a1a, J2, G... noone really knows!!

 

[phoenix]

I think the most probably haplogroups were E-V13

 

[phoenix]

and R1b1b2 i doubt in the R1a1a possibility it is high in Macedonia because they are Slavic nation

 

[Nikas]

It is important to keep in mind that Alexander had light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, like many other Macedonian nobles, which suggests that the Indo-European speakers from the steppes didn't mix with the dark-skinned and curly black-haired Middle Eastern Neolithic inhabitants of Greece (those typically depicted in ancient Greek pottery).

Hi Maciamo,

As knowledgeable as you are in genetics, unfortunately you are incorrect here. Plutarch describes Alexander as "ruddy" and "fair", but doesn't specify hair or eye colour. Aelian describes Alexander as "xanthizein" which in ancient Greek could have been light brown or dirty blonde or basically anything this side of black, so that doesn't help. One source that currently escapes my recollection is the one that says Alexander had two different eye colours for each eye, but I seem to recall that being spurious. The Alexander mosaic in Pompeii's House of Faun is said to be based on a near contemporary painting executed by Apelles for Cassander and he looks pretty brunette there, however we must allow for the patron's own biases. The Alexander in the guise of Ares mosaic and the young Alexander in the Pella mosaics, although show fairer hair, it seems all of the images do and in context of artistic liberty (dark background; lighter hair to contrast). Finally, the Alexander Sarcophagus has a hodgepodge of colouring on the characters, so again inconclusive.
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that we don't know with any certainty what colour his hair was, and even less on the eyes.

 

[Nikas]

It is actually the Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) who described Alexander as blond and blue-eyed:

Alexander had light skin, blond hair, and melting blue eyes. A sweet natural fragrance came from his body, so strong that it perfumed his clothes."

This was somehow corroborated by the Greek historian Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. 86 - 160), who described Alexander as:The strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky It is therefore possible that Alexander had one brown eye and one blue eye.

Anyway I would give more credibility to the two Greek historians, because they were Greek intellectuals, while the person(s) who made the mosaic was a Roman artist, and artists aren't usually known for their historical accuracies.

Plutarch's (Alexander, 4.2) actual words are:

"Apelles de grafon ton keraunoforon ouk emimisato tin chroan, alla faioteronkai pepinomenon epoisen. In de lefkos, os fasin oi de lefkotisepefoinissen aftou peri to stithos malista kai to prosopon…"

"Lefkos" in fact means, "light", "bright", or "brilliant", not "blonde" and that's why translators don't use "blonde" as that would generally be "xanthos". You can refer to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for reference.

As for the eyes, I know I have read it before, but I don't believe it's in Arrian. If you know where exactly I'd like to see.

Also, bear in mind that the Roman mosaic is supposedly a faithful original of a near contemporary original. I don't necessarily agree that it is an exact likeness, but it is plausibly the only eyewitness (if accurate) we may have.

 

[Nikas]

Because descending from Hercules, a mythological figure, is less absurd in your eyes ?!

Plutarch, Alexander 2.1:

"On his father's side Alexander was descended from Hercules through Caranus, and on his mother's from Aeacus through Neoptolemus: so much is accepted by all authorities without question."

Just saying…

 

[DTG]

Is it possible that the ancient Macedonians belonged to Haplogroup I2a?

 

[Yaan]

I think E(V13) or I2a or J2b. The lightest people in Bulgarian and Macedonia come from E(V13) regions the darkest from R1b and J2 regions. Plus we can not be sure, how he looked. Also I think R1b and R1a in the Balkan are of Slavic,Central Asian and Celtic origin.
E(V13),J2b and to a lesser extend G2a, J2 and I2a are the real Balkan groups.

 

[razor]

Don't forget that according to the latest studies (Verenich/Nordtvedt) the Balkan I2a is primarily of relatively recent Slavic origin. Which of course does not preclude the presence of an earlier I2a. We won't know for sure until the I2a study group embarks on its long expected WTY processes in the hope of unearthing new SNP's for this most numerous of current I2a's. We could be in for interesting surprises.

 

[Yaan]

I agree with you that I2a is mostly Slavic.I am one of the people that think Slavs were I2a and less R1a.The ancient Thracian and Macedonians according to me me mostly E(V13) and J2b people.
It is so racist and untrue to say that E(V13) and J2b people were ruled by the powerful R1b people.I do not believe this for a second. In Bulgaria R1b is found mostly among Turks and Bulgarians from the North east which support the theory that it is Central Asian(In Bulgaria). I mean before the German invasion Western Europe was not ruled by R1b let aside the Balkan. As for R1a I think in the Balkan it is Central Asian and Slavic.
Original Balkan people were E(V13) and J2b. Hellenic did have R1b. Alexander always saw a connection to Ancient Egypt! One more point for E(V13).

 

[LeBrok]

Alexander always saw a connection to Ancient Egypt! One more point for E(V13).

Maybe through R1b, cousin king Tut?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showth...ankhamun-Akhenaten-and-Amenhotep-III-were-R1b

It is so racist and untrue to say that E(V13) and J2b people were ruled by the powerful R1b people.

To acknowledge state of affairs from the past, like dominance R1b or R1a tribes in parts of Europe, shouldn't make anyone racist.
Just because someone was racist in the past doesn't make you racist, even if you talk about this.

What can make anyone racist, is when a person wants his/her tribe to dominate, and this person hates other tribes.