• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Genetics of the Greek Peleponessus

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by ihype02
It is not rape when you like it.
Click to expand...

You ever post something like that again and you're banned permanently.

Capisce?
 
Angela said:
He's cleaned up his act because he wants to be taken "seriously" (which means massive scrubbing of his posts, as well as some convenient "crashes" at various blogs), but a lot of us have been around for ten years and more, so we read them at the time, and some of us have collected some eye-opening screenshots. I once followed a picture from google and wound up on Stormfront, and the conversation between him and some Russian almost made me fall off my chair. It was racism on steroids. Heck, even with sites like the apricity, important members have been arrested.
Click to expand...

Wow, I wasn't aware of that. I've found some of his posts quite interesting, but have noticed a tendency to "over-steppize" each and every people and each and every debate. He's also stuck with the idea that Indo-Europeans = Eastern Europe and that's it, nothing very similar to a mobile culture spanning a huge territory between Eastern Europe and Central Asia during a time of big CHG and EEF influence. But compared to the "Italianists" (I didn't even know that such a thing existed) and "Indianists" of his comment sections he's always sounded reasonable for me, who've read just his later posts. I'll take his opinions with several grains of salt, especially since exactly today I've had a discussion with one of these guys who thinks is an expert because he reads these blogs and participates in the usual suspect forums. And, of course, he insists on that Indo-Europeans were the EHG (not pre-pre-IE, he just calls them the ancestral Indo-Europeans, LOL) and, unsurprisingly, that the EHG were all blonde, blue eyed and pale. His worldview would probably crumble if he accepted the probable truth.

By the way, let me make a relevant suggestion to the moderator of Eupedia Maciamo. That Nordicist guy was using Maciamo's words in his article about the Yamna people, and even though his wording clearly stated that the human remains studied have for now confirmed that Yamna was mostly brown in eyes and hair, it later suggests that the rest of Yamna probably had more blonde and light-eyed people. Perhaps the text could be revised in order to make the facts clearer, because the guy simply interpreted that only some individuals and areas in Yamna were brown-haired and brown-eyed entirely because of Iranian Plateau admixture, the rest being, of course, their usual blonde and blue-eyed fetish. This misunderstanding due to a relatively vague wording may spread pseudo-science and racism on the web.
 
Jovialis said:
How does that refute a more recent scientific study based on genetics? Its like saying the Bible proves the Canaanites were exterminated. When in fact their genetic continuity lives on in the Lebanese.
May I ask why you believe this history over the geneticists?
Click to expand...
Bible isn't to be taken literally atleast not for scientific and historical research. Now there is a difference between one or two authors and numerous ones.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-anc...gless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586
 
ihype02 said:
Bible isn't to be taken literally atleast not for scientific and historical research. Now there is a difference between one or two authors and numerous ones.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-anc...gless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586
Click to expand...

I don't care about your dated click-bait sources. I come to this site to primarily discuss genetics. So unless you can provide a legitimate scientific genetic article that's more recent than the one this thread is about; I don't care about what you have to say. I don't care about your mission to disprove genetics, with history.

I'm Phi Alpha Theta, and I'll be the first to tell you that history is fuzzy. Should we believe the disparaging historical account made by the Romans against the Barbarians? Some of the great historians of the past are as legitimate as some of the WORST internet ******. That's why you don't use one source; that's why multiple primary sources are more valued than secondary sources. But up against a hard science, history takes a back seat. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Right now, you sound like the type of person that looks up a landmark in a GPS, and are boggled by why it is not there in reality.

"Impossible, it said so in the GPS!"
 
^^What you fail to understand or refuse to understand is that this particular paper had only one purpose, and that was to refute the speculations of the 19th century racists that the ancient Greeks were "Nordics", and that later Greeks were the product of massive migrations from both "Slavic" countries and the Near East. It was not to determine the ethnic make-up of Albanians or their impact on Greece. Everything is not about you.

It was a good effort, but based only on modern dna, so limited in its usefulness.

A good part of the real story is found in the recent paper by the Reich group at Harvard based on ancient dna. Whatever wars and migrations have occurred, modern Greeks on the mainland are still over 70% similar to the ancient Mycenaeans. That is more than the Albanians by any measure that could be used.

So, yes, there has been some change, but it certainly hasn't been to bring in any Near Eastern ancestry, which was one part of the story, since the analysis shows that the "southern" ancestry actually decreased. Some of the change is undoutedly the result of the Slavic migrations, but not in the way that was proposed in 19th century agenda motivated speculations, or in 20th and 21st century agenda motivated speculations. There was no massive re-settlement of Poles or Russians in Greece, replacing the original population. Rather, what seems to have happened is that there was some settlement of Slavic "speaking" peoples, probably from further north, who were themselves admixed.

As for the impact of the Albanians, perhaps they did contribute to the genetic changes. If so, however, based on the changes in the Greek genome, it seems that what they would have done is to contribute to the decrease in the amount of Mycenaean. If you want to "brag" about that for some bizarre reason, go ahead.

Also, Albanians aren't going to turn out to be "pure" Illyrians either, even if there should be continuity. None of us are exactly the same as our ancient ancestors. The question that was addressed here was whether there was, in general, continuity, and I would say that based on figures of at least 73%, there was .

You're not convincing anyone with all these attempts at distraction. The data you present is largely unreliable or unquantifiable, but even if it weren't, it's rather irrelevant. Greeks are basically Greeks, as has already been said. Get over it.
 
Sile said:
where did the Phoenician language come from ?, because in the late bronze age the languages of phoenician lands where non-semetic lands.
Click to expand...

You know that the Phoenician cities are in the yellow section right? Sidon, Tyre and Byblos
 
Azzurro said:
You know that the Phoenician cities are in the yellow section right? Sidon, Tyre and Byblos
Click to expand...

I don't think it's worth discussing. Rather, I'd like to know why ihype02 even brought it up in the first place.

Also, I see he has a sock-puppet account down voting my posts/ up voting his own. SAD!

I guess that's what you have to resort to, when you're getting destroyed on all fronts.
 
Azzurro said:
You know that the Phoenician cities are in the yellow section right? Sidon, Tyre and Byblos
Click to expand...

This is a political map, not a linguistic one. In the orange area, we know for sure that in the Late Bronze Age IE Anatolian, Hurro-Urartian, Hattic, Kaskian and Ugaritic were spoken, and perhaps a few other less important language groups. The northern Levantine areas probably spoke Hurrian as well as some Western Semitic languages, especially in the desertic highlands.
 
Jovialis - I do not have a sock-puppet account. And I downvoted (1), your last essay. I did not vote up my posts.
Second you brought Canaaites here not me.

- - I still think the purpose of the study was political but it would have been much better if I remained silent [since the beginning].
 
Last edited:
Mycenaeans predate, by a lot, the Classical Greeks. They weren't even "Greek" in the sense of the word.

The difference of Modern Greeks vis-a-vis ancient Mycenaeans is explained by the immediately later migrations that many like to attribute to a "Dark Age" and later rebirth. It is this heritage that mainland Greeks carry.

To use, say, southern Italians as a sort of benchmark for ancient-greekness is ridiculous. Again, Mycenaeans weren't actual Greeks, for starters; and modern southern Italians (and Near Easterners) have African influence that is largely lacking in Greeks. Similarly, Slavic-speaking countries tend toward East Asiatic influence, which is largely lacking in Greeks. Had ancient Greeks and southern Italians been the same, modern Greeks would have similar amounts of African admixture (assuming most of the African isn't recent [most likely]); had ancient Greeks been diluted by Near Easterners, modern Greeks would again have more African admixture. Had ancient Greeks been diluted with Slavs, modern Greeks would have more East Asian DNA (even more if Slavic influx somehow "erased" any existing African influence).

Clearly, as corroborated by a recent paper, such diluted-Greek theories are--quite bluntly--impossible. Modern Greeks have to be the most indigenous population of the peoples discussed in this thread. And there's the small inconvenience (that most seem to overlook) that there exist no genetic studies showing Greeks clustering with Slavs. None that I've seen. Zero. Some of you can get as creative as you want with stupid haplogroups, but good luck finding anything further than Fallmerayor-esqe speculation.
 
Constantine said:
Mycenaeans predate, by a lot, the Classical Greeks. They weren't even "Greek" in the sense of the word.

The difference of Modern Greeks vis-a-vis ancient Mycenaeans is explained by the immediately later migrations that many like to attribute to a "Dark Age" and later rebirth. It is this heritage that mainland Greeks carry.

To use, say, southern Italians as a sort of benchmark for ancient-greekness is ridiculous. Again, Mycenaeans weren't actual Greeks, for starters; and modern southern Italians (and Near Easterners) have African influence that is largely lacking in Greeks. Similarly, Slavic-speaking countries tend toward East Asiatic influence, which is largely lacking in Greeks. Had ancient Greeks and southern Italians been the same, modern Greeks would have similar amounts of African admixture (assuming most of the African isn't recent [most likely]); had ancient Greeks been diluted by Near Easterners, modern Greeks would again have more African admixture. Had ancient Greeks been diluted with Slavs, modern Greeks would have more East Asian DNA (even more if Slavic influx somehow "erased" any existing African influence).

Clearly, as corroborated by a recent paper, such diluted-Greek theories are--quite bluntly--impossible. Modern Greeks have to be the most indigenous population of the peoples discussed in this thread. And there's the small inconvenience (that most seem to overlook) that there exist no genetic studies showing Greeks clustering with Slavs. None that I've seen. Zero. Some of you can get as creative as you want with stupid haplogroups, but good luck finding anything further than Fallmerayor-esqe speculation.
Click to expand...

For any newbies, this is absolute bunk.

None of the recent papers even mentions haplogroups (uniparental markers), so that's a complete straw man argument. As is the statement that anyone says the Greeks are the most indigenous population. I would challenge you to find such a statement and post it. I would join you in disagreeing with it.

These studies are based on total genetic similarity, i.e. autosomes. You really shouldn't be in the business of criticizing something you have clearly made no effort to understand.

All the papers are saying is that there has been genetic continuity in mainland Greece since the time of the Mycenaeans. None of the researchers has said there have been no changes in their genomes since then. In fact, they said the opposite. An autosomal similarity of approximately 73% is not total similarity.

As for when and why the changes occurred, we have to wait for the ancient dna, unless you happen to have some Dorian remains stashed away someplace that you've had tested at a top notch lab? Stop talking through your hat.

As for denying that there was some input into Greece from Slavic speaking peoples, good luck with that. As to percentages, unlike you I don't have a crystal ball, so I'll wait for the ancient dna. There is absolutely no logic in stating that some degree of admixture would make Greeks cluster with Poles or Russians. You would need near total replacement for that, which obviously didn't happen.

Please also stop with the racist East Europeans have East Asian and southern Italians have African nonsense. Do some people in those areas have a few percent of that ancestry? Yes, they do, as do people in Spain and Portugal. So what? What's wrong with it? Plus, it's not enough to change overall similarity.

The sheer nonsense of saying that the first Greek speakers weren't really Greek boggles the mind and doesn't really deserve an answer.
 
Last edited:
Constantine said:
Mycenaeans predate, by a lot, the Classical Greeks. They weren't even "Greek" in the sense of the word.

The difference of Modern Greeks vis-a-vis ancient Mycenaeans is explained by the immediately later migrations that many like to attribute to a "Dark Age" and later rebirth. It is this heritage that mainland Greeks carry.

To use, say, southern Italians as a sort of benchmark for ancient-greekness is ridiculous. Again, Mycenaeans weren't actual Greeks, for starters; and modern southern Italians (and Near Easterners) have African influence that is largely lacking in Greeks. Similarly, Slavic-speaking countries tend toward East Asiatic influence, which is largely lacking in Greeks. Had ancient Greeks and southern Italians been the same, modern Greeks would have similar amounts of African admixture (assuming most of the African isn't recent [most likely]); had ancient Greeks been diluted by Near Easterners, modern Greeks would again have more African admixture. Had ancient Greeks been diluted with Slavs, modern Greeks would have more East Asian DNA (even more if Slavic influx somehow "erased" any existing African influence).

Clearly, as corroborated by a recent paper, such diluted-Greek theories are--quite bluntly--impossible. Modern Greeks have to be the most indigenous population of the peoples discussed in this thread. And there's the small inconvenience (that most seem to overlook) that there exist no genetic studies showing Greeks clustering with Slavs. None that I've seen. Zero. Some of you can get as creative as you want with stupid haplogroups, but good luck finding anything further than Fallmerayor-esqe speculation.
Click to expand...

Where’s my recent autosomal African, or Near eastern ancestry, genius? They can identify those components in testing. I guess, I’m supposed to believe some random garbage from a faceless layman on the internet, before genetic scientists who sequenced my DNA.

Certainly there are some who have those components, but so what? It minuscule anyway. How do you know you don’t have any? What would you do if you did?

I love genetics, because it can refute your lazy assessments of people.

All you have is racist lysenkoism; you have the scientific credibility of a creationist.

Accurate depiction of IE-migrations according to ihype02/constantine:

fosnz4a.jpg
 
I don't know if I necessarily agree with your assessment. I haven't read anything (that is sensible) that suggests that mainland Greeks cluster with Slavs and certainly nothing that suggests Near Eastern affinity. As far as Central and Southern Italians are concerned they're genetic proximity to Greeks can't be denied. My own raw data has me consistently near various Central and Southern Italian samples. Why couldn't those samples be a proxy for Mainland Greeks. I agree Mycaeneans aren't Greeks but Greeks have a unique genetic makeup that varies region to region but as someone on this site pointed out mainland Greeks as a whole are fairly uniform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top