Andrewid said:
Why are you making vast generalisations? The only thing that smells, nay stinks, is your comment.
And as Lazardes et al say on p6 of their origins of the Mycenaeans/Minoans study:
We estimated FSTof Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that
Mycenaeans are least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and
Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resemble
present-day inhabitants from the same region
And this comment is not even relevant, it's a clear nonsequitur, since I've never implied that Mycenaeans are not least differentiated from populations from
Greece,Cyprus, Albania and Italy; I'll try to make it simple for you:
1) Among those populations, it is ascertained that the closest are Peloponnesian Greeks and Cretans and south Italians, and to the extent Cretans can be used as a proxy for other Greek islanders, also other Greek islanders are pretty close.
2) The genetic literature's consensus is that it is so because those populations had the fewest amount of external genetic input; to keep the discussion on topic, specifically that Peloponnesian Greeks (southern ones particularly) and Greek islanders have the lowest input from Slavic and hence are the closest to ancient Greeks, and more broadly Greeks as a whole are modelled as ancient Greeks + Slavs.
3) Other Greeks from particular ethnic backgrounds and Albanians in this thread deny point 2 and put forward laughable claims, namely that actually Greeks are made up from a very diverse array of different populations whose overall mix somehow approximates what you'd get if you mixed ancient Greeks and Slavs.
4) Since point three is what happens when you throw aside Ockham's razor and decide to take the pataphysical approach, I can't deduce it is motivated by ethnic inferiority complexes.
mount123 said:
These are very generalizing statements and don't differ much from other sentiments I have come across on this thread.
With 100% or almost 100% Balkanites you are whom exactly addressing?
The when-clause ought to make clear that I refer to those posters that insist on their delusions, since what I said applies
when they engage in said behaviour, but to avoid misunderstanding, of course I have no intention of accusing all members of an ethnicity, since it would be dumb and directed towards people that aren't an annoyance.
With "100% or almost 100% Balkanites " I am referring to how certain Albanian posters here describe themselves as "100% descendants of ancient Balkanites" (when they insisted that "it is no coincidence that they are similar to Logkas 2") BUT they also insist that Greeks just "happen" to cluster close to them because Greeks would be heavily admixed with Slavs whereas they are not (so they claim, whatever meaning you want to give to "heavily").
eupator said:
It's okay, a lot of posters feel they are the lost cousin of Achilles and Odysseus because their paid sub on mytrueancestry's PCA said so.
So they personalize the conversation because they feel personally attacked when historical truth knocks on the door.
So far none of my points were contested, in fact, most of the stuff other people posted with their models confirm these historical truths.
And we haven't even began talking about modern Greek haplogroups ...
Your "historical truths" are wild speculations that fail many epistemological standards in historiography (said otherwise, you make a lot of inductive mistakes, you lack understanding of the larger picture, and show no critical appraisal of the information you read in ancient sources), I suggest you read some books about the methods and standards used in historical research.