Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[blevins13]

As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

The Serbs are not Slavs!!!!??? This says it all. They are definitely Slavs and have absorbed Balkanite populations, while the Romanians are the opposite.....Balkanites that have absorbed Slavic population.

As for the Dorians, we still have to identify a northern Dorian grave. There is still a huge debate and no general agreement where they came from.
For me Dorians are typically Hallstatt.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Pax Augusta]

Crete Armenoi certainly has more Steppe-related ancestry than Mycenaeans, but Crete Armenoi is also a low quality sample, so it is impossible to know exactly where she plots in a PCA and how much Steppe-related ancestry she has.

[Angela]

30% steppe in Armenoi seems too high, as per the admixture proportions in the paper. Bergamasques are about 30% Steppe, Armenoi is south of Tuscans:

Exactly right. Assuming the analysis of Crete Armenoi is close to correct (given it's not a very good sample) we're talking about 25% or less.

Thanks for producing actual data, which we certainly don't get from those two sites when they're engaging in their wild speculations, unless, of course, it's their own amateurish, often totally wrong "modeling".

That's why I'm not going down this rabbit hole. No time to waste on it. If these new samples are all post Slavic migrations they tell us nothing about how the people of Bronze Age Greece or Iron Age Greece or even Classical Era Greece might have varied autosomally. We need samples from THOSE PERIODS to know that.

Likewise, if that's the case, and as "iluvater" said, we can have no idea what the various settlers of Southern Italy might have been like.

For the record, I still think it's highly unlikely that some of the earliest Greek speakers were "just like Corded Ware". :)

What they do tell us, again, if they're even relaying the information correctly, is that North Macedonians were like Serbians and Romanians at that particular period. I don't get why that's surprising.

Today, Macedonians are barely different from Romanians and Bulgarians. The ones who are more "northern" or "Slavic" in comparison are the Serbs. IF Serbs and Romanians of that time period WERE very similar, what happened? More migration of Slavs into Serbia following that period? More upward flow of Greek like people in Macedonia, Romania and Bulgaria? A bigger pool of pre-Slav "locals" in Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Romania? I have no idea and neither can anyone else. NO ONE has a crystal ball, not even Blevins. Only more samples will tell.

If people want to speculate, I suppose they can speculate about that, although, again, given the garbled junk that was posted before the Moots paper came out, I would personally be wary about that.

[Demetrios]

The Serbs are not Slavs!!!!??? This says it all. They are definitely Slavs and have absorbed Balkanite populations, while the Romanians are the opposite.....Balkanites that have absorbed Slavic population.

As for the Dorians, we still have to identify a northern Dorian grave. There is still a huge debate and no general agreement where they came from.
For me Dorians are typically Hallstatt.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

We already have a number of Dorian samples that are pending analysis. Also, there is no huge or academic debate about the Greekness of Dorian Greeks, this is already established. Furthermore, Dorians cannot represent a Hallstatt population, when even their dialect (and Greek in general) is absent of any noticeable Celtic substrate. Genetics will surely validate all these when the relative samples get published, especially when you also consider the Mycenaean and ancient Thracian samples that are already published. They cannot be that different, and my guess is that Dorians will be somewhere in the middle between these two, per geographic distribution. Writing that Dorians are typically Hallstatt is like writing that they are typically proto-Celtic or Celtic, which is of course not true.

[blevins13]

We already have a number of Dorian samples that are pending analysis. Also, there is no huge or academic debate about the Greekness of Dorian Greeks, this is already established. Furthermore, Dorians cannot represent a Hallstatt population, when even their dialect (and Greek in general) is absent of any noticeable Celtic substrate. Genetics will surely validate all these when the relative samples get published, especially when you also consider the Mycenaean and ancient Thracian samples that are already published. They cannot be that different, and my guess is that Dorians will be somewhere in the middle between these two, per geographic distribution. Writing that Dorians are typically Hallstatt is like writing that they are typically proto-Celtic or Celtic, which is of course not true.

I know your views, but we do not know yet what is true. I expressed my views, I have no intention to take away the Greekness of Dorians.

As for where Dorians came from questions

Read this and close the gap if you know the answer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

I know your views, but we do not know yet what is true. I expressed my views, I have no intention to take away the Greekness of Dorians.

As for where Dorians came from questions

Read this and close the gap if you know the answer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

I am already familiar with that article. In short, there seems to have been a southward migration from northern Greek tribes such as the Dorians sometime during the Bronze Age collapse and Early Iron Age. This is the prevalent view today, and it makes sense linguistically. Listen to what Eric Cline mentions a couple of months ago in this small video that relates, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ2gT9HQy7Q. Also, take note of what is written here, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page87?p=606408&viewfull=1#post606408.

[Aaron1981]

As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

Paternally I would say you are incorrect. A good chunk of their fatherlines come from the north east, as some of these types of R1a and I2-M423 have not shown up in the area until < 2000 ybp. Even going back to the age estimates, this still pans out, at least for the relevant downstream I2-M423 guys, it's been demonstrated with the TMRCA. Then there is the IBD sharing that was shown a few years back. The impact of this autosomally may be minor, showing only a minor shift northwards. We know that Yamnaya ancestry predates these events.

[Angela]

Paternally I would say you are incorrect. A good chunk of their fatherlines come from the north east, as some of these types of R1a and I2-M423 have not shown up in the area until < 2000 ybp. Even going back to the age estimates, this still pans out, at least for the relevant downstream I2-M423 guys, it's been demonstrated with the TMRCA. Then there is the IBD sharing that was shown a few years back. The impact of this autosomally may be minor, showing only a minor shift northwards. We know that Yamnaya ancestry predates these events.

Where did I ever say that men in the Balkans don't carry R1a and I2-M423?

Where did I ever say that the Slavic migrations didn't occur?

The fact that the I2-M43 "guys" might have arrived as early as the first millennium BC doesn't mean they were Slavs or "Slavic like" autosomally. You have any samples of migrants into the Balkans that early that carry that signature and are autosomally "Slavic like"?

This is once again assumption upon assumption when we don't even know if the leaks are correct.

Plus, do I have to say again how unreliable y dna is as to total autosomal make-up. My father was U-152. People from his area are "completely" North Central Italian autosomally.

Sorry, but to me it's always the same reliance on inappropriate data and then drawing illogical conclusions from it.

Participated in all the discussions on the Moots paper before it was published? This is like deja-vu all over again to quote the great Yogi Berra. :)

You seem like a smart guy. Why do you fall for this bilge over and over again?

[Angela]

As usual imo Davidski makes no sense to me.

Romanians and Serbs are not SLAVS. They're Balkanites who happen to have more East European than, say, Greeks or Albanians.

The Slavic migrations, like the Lombards ones or the Gallic ones had progressively less impact the further south it traveled.

All you have to do is look at any autosomal analysis.

Some of the "northern" shift may also be Celtic etc. They were in some areas for a long time.

There's only one way to know the specifics here, and that is to have an ancient sample from one of the migrating Slavic speaking tribes, and ancient samples from the period before that from both, say, Romania and Serbia, and then a bit later from Macedonia and Thessaly and lower Greece.

He just confuses everyone with gibberesh.

The Dorians are from a completely different period. Again, the only way to know what they were like, and the impact upon the autosomal composition of the locals is to compare one from a documented, more northern "Dorian" grave, and an ancient sample from, say, the Peloponnese before their arrival.

My guess is that the Dorians are "Greek like", as most contemporary archaeologists and historians agree.

This was just another Nordicist "myth" to try to "appropriate" the accomplishments of Greek civilization.

Another fail, probably, although we need the samples to be sure.

[Palermo Trapani]

Where did I ever say that men in the Balkans don't carry R1a and I2-M423?

Where did I ever say that the Slavic migrations didn't occur?

The fact that the I2-M43 "guys" might have arrived as early as the first millennium BC doesn't mean they were Slavs or "Slavic like" autosomally. You have any samples of migrants into the Balkans that early that carry that signature and are autosomally "Slavic like"?

This is once again assumption upon assumption when we don't even know if the leaks are correct.

Plus, do I have to say again how unreliable y dna is as to total autosomal make-up. My father was U-152. People from his area are "completely" North Central Italian autosomally.

Sorry, but to me it's always the same reliance on inappropriate data and then drawing illogical conclusions from it.

Participated in all the discussions on the Moots paper before it was published? This is like deja-vu all over again to quote the great Yogi Berra. :)

You seem like a smart guy. Why do you fall for this bilge over and over again?

Good one with Yogi Berra!, lots of gems from him, seems like people are coming to the fork in the road and taking it (i..e the same one as they did on the pre- Antonio (Moots) et al 2019 paper).

[blevins13]

My guess is that the Dorians are "Greek like", as most contemporary archaeologists and historians agree.

This was just another Nordicist "myth" to try to "appropriate" the accomplishments of Greek civilization.

Another fail, probably, although we need the samples to be sure.

In England you will have, Saxons, Viking, Normans all contributing to what is Britain today, while in Greece nothing, it is the same people from around 1200 BC no addition.....ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Archetype0ne]

In England you will have, Saxons, Viking, Normans all contributing to what is Britain today, while in Greece nothing, it is the same people from around 1200 BC no addition.....ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Might have to do with "Greek-like" being used as an umbrella term.

If one was to use the same line of reasoning for most nations in the Balkans and elsewhere they would get crucified.
An example, if Angela was to say Saxons, Vikings, Normans were English-like... that would certainly raise some eyebrows. Its like sayings eggs are cake-like.

For the record, I am very close autosomally to a lot of Greek populations, more specifically using the latest calculators (our best tool atm), I am closer to Macedonia Greeks than to North Albanians. Would I have an issue with someone describing me as "Greek-like"? I would not mind. Do I think it is faulty logic to group eggs and milk in one category, and call this category "egg-like" just because they both are ingredients in cake? Most definitively.

I am sure the last analogy will fly above some peoples heads...

Maybe these images will be useful.

G25 Distances: Me.


G25 Distances: Minoan



G25 Distances: Mycenaean

[ihype02]

The Thracian is closer than Greek islanders are because it is Anatolia Neolithic heavy, like the Myceneans(they too had anatolian bronze age admixture just less), compared to islanders and south italians, both of which require aditional steppe and anatolia bronze age admixture to get to their modern position.

Peloponnesians can be modeled with more Mycenean than either islanders or south Italians (as would one expect),but this is not the point, since if what Davidski says is true the ancient Greeks were quite heterogeneous (as you saw he mentioned some samples with clear origin from Anatolia). I dont know what pre greek southern Italy was like before the Greeks came, nor do i know what the majority of the Greeks settling there were like. Looking at modern samples of relatively similar populations will be of little use for the matter at hand. Rhodes was also Doric but their genetic base is mostly anatolia bronze age unlike the more Anatolia Neolithic heavy base of peloponessians (meaning pre slavic Peloponnesians were different than pre slavic rhodians, so them beign in antiquity both Doric means little). Chances are this was the case before the mycenaeans settled there even, but we'll see.



Not every single documented migration or presence of peoples in an area leaves a genetic trace, nor does lack of documentation of this sort, mean there was no admixture. I find this sort of speculation tiresome and definitely not in any way illuminating, so how about we wait for the actual data? Im just adding what Davidski said in regards to Greece as you referenced him in regards to the balkans.I dont know if what he says is acurate, or even if my reading of it is, since the information is rather vague. We will see when the relevant data is out.

This should interest you as wel since it is also relevant to the albanians, as the pre-Slavic ancestor of the albanians were likelly similar to the pre-Slavic ancestors of the greeks, seeing as albanians are more southeastern compared to the western Balkan samples we have and do require additional Slavic as wel. I do recall him saying in an anthrogenica thread that most of the preslavic population was similar to the bulgaria iron age sample but with more steppe but i cant be bothered to check rn.

Also for the record i do believe there is substantial slavic admixture in greece. Something like 30% for most of the mainland from a Serbian like source would make sense. Propably more for the north and Albania. But again, useless to speculate, wait for the data.

Classical Greeks might have a little bit more northern shifted compared to Myceneans, but I don't believe that Dorians were like Northern Italians, Germans or Slavs before mixing with Myceaneans in that sense that it would reduce the northern alleles significantly, and I used to support this hypothesis in the past but now no.

I agree that old Greeks had assimilated Anatolians ever since the classical antiquity or before (it is documented) so it is not suprise that there were Anatolian-like people in some islands and cities. Herodotus was half Carian himself.

I don't think that Slavs of Greece were Serbian-like (more northern), mainland Greeks push around 25% to 30% Slavic when using Myceaneans versus Ukrainian in the model.

[bigsnake49]

In England you will have, Saxons, Viking, Normans all contributing to what is Britain today, while in Greece nothing, it is the same people from around 1200 BC no addition.....ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Where did anybody say anything about the current Greeks being 100% like Bronze Age Greeks? Current Greeks are an amalgam of locals+Slavs+Arvanites+Vlachs+Venetians. Then you have forced migrations by the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman emperors and Bulgarian Tzars. So there was some mixing. The question is to what extent and is the effect local? For that we need more samples. According to the leaks, Ancient Greeks were not homogenous genetically to begin with. So let's see what the paper(s) tell us.

[Ralphie Boy]

In England you will have, Saxons, Viking, Normans all contributing to what is Britain today, while in Greece nothing, it is the same people from around 1200 BC no addition.....ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Nobody is even remotely suggesting Greeks had no admixture since the Mycenaeans. They did, plenty in the mainland from Slavs and Arvanites. But studies show that the Neolithic farmer genes of the south Balkans that were more prevalent in Mycenaeans and Minoans are still significant in today’s people. We have big gaps in time that need to be filled, and hopefully the published info comes out soon. Hopefully the rumors are valid, that there are samples and results.

[Yetos]

In England you will have, Saxons, Viking, Normans all contributing to what is Britain today, while in Greece nothing, it is the same people from around 1200 BC no addition.....ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

as always, your empathy blinds you,

In Greece we have Slavs, Arvanites, Armani (Vlachs), Anatolians, Thracians, and remnants of Romans, and Crusaders and Latinocracy, meaning Italians, Gauls, Iberians, Germans etc etc, we even have Roma people.

You are always in empathy with Greece and want to create a negative or false image.

And NO,
if you are reffering to ancient Greek is a unification movement that happens after the 900 BC
and all genetics and history and archaiology is clear about the materials,

1) the before bronze era farmers, 'natives'
2) a) the 'native' populations like Minyans Minoans etc
2) b) the Myceneans close enough genetically with Minoans and then Cypriots and S Italians
3) and the lower Istros(Danube) Greeks, branch from Greco-Brygians, a kind of Vucedol etc etc.
4) other small populations like the Samothrake Kabeires, etc etc

a mix of Graekoi and Selloi (Greeks, Hellenes) of Dodona oracle as described by Aristotle.
the word Hellenes is after the them, alternative Selloi etc etc


As for your observation,
In England of myths like Arthur or Robin Hood, How many centuries hold that conflict?
we see the difference of Saxons, and Normands, and little bit beside centers the Celts,
England Unification movement happened after that,
BUT ALL EXISTED IN ENGLAND WHEN HAPPENED

In Greece, when unification movement happened around 900 BC
we had mainly contribution of the Greeks and the Hellenes,
AND ALL WERE PRESENT HERE,

[bigsnake49]

Nobody is even remotely suggesting Greeks had no admixture since the Mycenaeans. They did, plenty in the mainland from Slavs and Arvanites. But studies show that the Neolithic farmer genes of the south Balkans that were more prevalent in Mycenaeans and Minoans are still significant in today’s people. We have big gaps in time that need to be filled, and hopefully the published info comes out soon. Hopefully the rumors are valid, that there are samples and results.

Yes, I do believe that the classical Greeks were a mixture of the Greek Tribes migrating down and the local Neolithic farmers (Pelasgians??). I don't believe that the Greek Tribes wiped out the local populations.

[iluvatar]

Classical Greeks might have a little bit more northern shifted compared to Myceneans, but I don't believe that Dorians were like Northern Italians, Germans or Slavs before mixing with Myceaneans in that sense that it would reduce the northern alleles significantly, and I used to support this hypothesis in the past but now no.

Sure, i agree that the Dorians were not like Northern Italians/Germans/Slavs. I dont even have an opinion on whether the Dorian invasion happened. The archaeological consensus seems to be that there is not much evidence for it. A migration/invasion by northern Greeks could be enough to explain dialect change during the iron age. Those Greeks could have slightly more steppe ancestry, or they could be identical to the average Mycenaean. Many possibilities. All im saying is that, if the rumors are true, there is substructure in terms of steppe admixture in the bronze age Greeks, (from 0% to about 30% (30 is what Davidski said when asked what he thinks the max will be), and that later Greeks are heterogeneous. So our models with the current samples might not be entirely accurate.

I don't think that Slavs of Greece were Serbian-like (more northern), mainland Greeks push around 25% to 30% Slavic when using Myceaneans versus Ukrainian in the model.

Yes thats why im pointing out that pre-slavic greeks might be slightly different. Im not even saying that Armenoi will be typical. Im thinking the average pre Slavic Peloponnesian might be similar to the average modern south Italian, hence the 0.2 to 14.4% north Slavic (do the math if the Slavs entering Greece turn out Serb like which is likely) estimate from the Stamatoyannopoulos study might turn out to be close to the truth. Remember that study had an extensive sample size of Peloponnesians, far larger than anything from hobbyist calculators on the internet, which they compared to Sicilians and Italians.

We seem to agree on the broad strokes and have our preferred scenarios when it comes to the details. My main point merely is don't rush to conclusions based on 4 samples from the bronze age, even if they are probably fairly representantive. Im done speculating for now. Im looking forward to see how this all pans out when the studies actually come out.

[Demetrios]

Might have to do with "Greek-like" being used as an umbrella term.
If one was to use the same line of reasoning for most nations in the Balkans and elsewhere they would get crucified.

Dorians spoke a distinct dialect of Greek, had the same deities and religious practices as the rest of the Greeks, and were considered by all of the ancient Greeks as one of the main four branches they divided themselves. "Greek-like" in this case would rather be a synonym to Greek. You have much less evidence than that for other populations groups out there, and yet you still have all sorts of lesser safe classifications.

Greeks have a recorded history spanning millennia. Mycenaean (Achaean) Greeks began having written records from 1450 BCE for example. Prior of deciphering their Linear B tablets there were all sorts of hypotheses as to their identity. But after their decipherment those hypotheses were put aside. Also, we have plenty of written Greek material throughout the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Medieval, and Modern eras that allows us to create a safe timeline and be able to study and analyse the evolution Greeks went through, linguistically, religiously, historically, etc.. And in our era we also begin to create a genetic picture of that evolution. Nobody wrote that there haven't been assimilations (just like there has been of Greeks by others) of foreign people. Even pre-proto-Greeks largely assimilated the prior population that was present in Greece. And yes, we have had cultural influences by others that contributed to the multiple stages of the Greek civilization. As i had written in a comment some months ago, influence is a natural thing, let alone for a population group that lies at the center of three continents and has been there for millennia.

[blevins13]

Dorians spoke a distinct dialect of Greek, had the same deities and religious practices as the rest of the Greeks, and were considered by all of the ancient Greeks as one of the main four branches they divided themselves. "Greek-like" in this case would rather be a synonym to Greek. You have much less evidence than that for other populations groups out there, and yet you still have all sorts of lesser safe classifications.

Greeks have a recorded history spanning millennia. Mycenaean (Achaean) Greeks began having written records from 1450 BCE for example. Prior of deciphering their Linear B tablets there were all sorts of hypotheses as to their identity. But after their decipherment those hypotheses were put aside. Also, we have plenty of written Greek material throughout the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Medieval, and Modern eras that allows us to create a safe timeline and be able to study and analyse the evolution Greeks went through, linguistically, religiously, historically, etc.. And in our era we also begin to create a genetic picture of that evolution. Nobody wrote that there haven't been assimilations (just like there has been of Greeks by others) of foreign people. Even pre-proto-Greeks largely assimilated the prior population that was present in Greece. And yes, we have had cultural influences by others that contributed to the multiple stages of the Greek civilization. As i had written in a comment some months ago, influence is a natural thing, let alone for a population group that lies at the center of three continents and has been there for millennia.

When Dorian Greek was attested for the first time?
How long it took to the corsicans to speak French
How long it to the Mongolians invasion army to speak Chinese?

Language dialect is very weak argument, try something better?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[blevins13]

as always, your empathy blinds you,

In Greece we have Slavs, Arvanites, Armani (Vlachs), Anatolians, Thracians, and remnants of Romans, and Crusaders and Latinocracy, meaning Italians, Gauls, Iberians, Germans etc etc, we even have Roma people.

You are always in empathy with Greece and want to create a negative or false image.

And NO,
if you are reffering to ancient Greek is a unification movement that happens after the 900 BC
and all genetics and history and archaiology is clear about the materials,

1) the before bronze era farmers, 'natives'
2) a) the 'native' populations like Minyans Minoans etc
2) b) the Myceneans close enough genetically with Minoans and then Cypriots and S Italians
3) and the lower Istros(Danube) Greeks, branch from Greco-Brygians, a kind of Vucedol etc etc.
4) other small populations like the Samothrake Kabeires, etc etc

a mix of Graekoi and Selloi (Greeks, Hellenes) of Dodona oracle as described by Aristotle.
the word Hellenes is after the them, alternative Selloi etc etc


As for your observation,
In England of myths like Arthur or Robin Hood, How many centuries hold that conflict?
we see the difference of Saxons, and Normands, and little bit beside centers the Celts,
England Unification movement happened after that,
BUT ALL EXISTED IN ENGLAND WHEN HAPPENED

In Greece, when unification movement happened around 900 BC
we had mainly contribution of the Greeks and the Hellenes,
AND ALL WERE PRESENT HERE,

Empathy, sympathy, let’s not get personal.
You are not a psychologist.......
You hypotheses about Vucidol , is still work in progress never to proven it seems.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Archetype0ne]

Dorians spoke a distinct dialect of Greek, had the same deities and religious practices as the rest of the Greeks, and were considered by all of the ancient Greeks as one of the main four branches they divided themselves. "Greek-like" in this case would rather be a synonym to Greek. You have much less evidence than that for other populations groups out there, and yet you still have all sorts of lesser safe classifications.

Greeks have a recorded history spanning millennia. Mycenaean (Achaean) Greeks began having written records from 1450 BCE for example. Prior of deciphering their Linear B tablets there were all sorts of hypotheses as to their identity. But after their decipherment those hypotheses were put aside. Also, we have plenty of written Greek material throughout the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, Medieval, and Modern eras that allows us to create a safe timeline and be able to study and analyse the evolution Greeks went through, linguistically, religiously, historically, etc.. And in our era we also begin to create a genetic picture of that evolution. Nobody wrote that there haven't been assimilations (just like there has been of Greeks by others) of foreign people. Even pre-proto-Greeks largely assimilated the prior population that was present in Greece. And yes, we have had cultural influences by others that contributed to the multiple stages of the Greek civilization. As i had written in a comment some months ago, influence is a natural thing, let alone for a population group that lies at the center of three continents and has been there for millennia.

I even sen't a PM since I did not want to derail this thread... but since you want to address it here rather than privately, here it goes.

If you read my analogy in the previous post and apply some critical thinking you will understand that what you addressed with your reply was not my point.

Anyways... It is a great thing you mentioned the different eras and the language.

Throughout the last 4000 years who would be considered Greek in your opinion? Minoans? Myceneans? Dorians? One tribe or the other? Macedonians or Spartans? Or they were all the same? If you go out of your way to say all the abovementioned peoples were the same, then you might want to change the definition of what "Greek" means. We see cultural, philologic, religious, philosophical, architectural and genetic changes and shifts across time and space (geography).

So...

If I am not mistaken when Alexander was giving orders to his Greek subjects, they could not understand him? Who was speaking Greek to whom?

Anyways... Can you understand Homeric Greek? Or linear B Mycenaean? Classical you would understand I am sure (you "learn" this in school?)... Attic if you studied it (or this one?).

Lets be serious here... The above-mentioned, unless you are a highly educated person in philology you would struggle (and I mean real hard) with modern Greek skills. Koine you would be able to understand... but that's because of the Bible and the religious context in the preservation of the idioms and lexicon.

Would you say Italian is equivalent to Latin? Rhetorical question of course. We both know the answer. So why is it different with modern Greek? It somehow is equivalent to what? Mycenaean? Or Homeric?

Who says "Turks" were Hittites? You see the absurdity... Although some people will hate me for this in this forum. Who takes it in seriousness that Latins were Italians? You can say Italians are descendant in part to Latins, but it does not work the other way around.
But somehow no one, not a single soul bats an eye when it comes to Greek. Myceneans were Greek, Minoans were Greek, Dorians Greek and so on and so forth.

Anyways... I really do not want to appear like a hater. (I think) I am not. In fact Hellenic and Roman civilizations are my favorite. On top of that me hating my closest autosomal relatives would make no sense.

If this does not clear it up, review the analogy in my previous post. I have no desire to continue this argument.

[Demetrios]

When Dorian Greek was attested for the first time?
How long it took to the corsicans to speak French
How long it to the Mongolians invasion army to speak Chinese?

Language dialect is very weak argument, try something better?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Earliest Doric inscription is from the 7th century BCE if i recall correctly, which is a century after the adaptation of the Phoenician abjad and the creation of the first Greek alphabet by the Euboean Ionian Greeks (most likely). I don't see how the rest of the questions relate here. For one, Corsican is a Tuscan dialect (Italic), not French, and Mongolians don't speak some distinct Chinese dialect of their own. Dorians spoke a distinct dialect from let's say the proto-Arcado-Cypriot dialect of Mycenaeans. Each Greek dialect has distinct characteristics and Doric for example has more conservative elements than Mycenaean Greek.

I don't have to prove something that is already established and being taught in the universities of the world.

[Demetrios]

I even sen't a PM since I did not want to derail this thread... but since you want to address it here rather than privately, here it goes.

If you read my analogy in the previous post and apply some critical thinking you will understand that what you addressed with your reply was not my point.

Anyways... It is a great thing you mentioned the different eras and the language.

Throughout the last 4000 years who would be considered Greek in your opinion? Minoans? Myceneans? Dorians? One tribe or the other? Macedonians or Spartans? Or they were all the same? If you go out of your way to say all the abovementioned peoples were the same, then you might want to change the definition of what "Greek" means. We see cultural, philologic, religious, philosophical, architectural and genetic changes and shifts across time and space (geography).

So...

If I am not mistaken when Alexander was giving orders to his Greek subjects, they could not understand him? Who was speaking Greek to whom?

Anyways... Can you understand Homeric Greek? Or linear B Mycenaean? Classical you would understand I am sure (you "learn" this in school?)... Attic if you studied it (or this one?).

Lets be serious here... The above-mentioned, unless you are a highly educated person in philology you would struggle (and I mean real hard) with modern Greek skills. Koine you would be able to understand... but that's because of the Bible and the religious context in the preservation of the idioms and lexicon.

Would you say Italian is equivalent to Latin? Rhetorical question of course. We both know the answer. So why is it different with modern Greek? It somehow is equivalent to what? Mycenaean? Or Homeric?

Who says "Turks" were Hittites? You see the absurdity... Although some people will hate me for this in this forum. Who takes it in seriousness that Latins were Italians? You can say Italians are descendant in part to Latins, but it does not work the other way around.
But somehow no one, not a single soul bats an eye when it comes to Greek. Myceneans were Greek, Minoans were Greek, Dorians Greek and so on and so forth.

Anyways... I really do not want to appear like a hater. (I think) I am not. In fact Hellenic and Roman civilizations are my favorite. On top of that me hating my closest autosomal relatives would make no sense.

If this does not clear it up, review the analogy in my previous post. I have no desire to continue this argument.

I would need multiple thousands of words to reply to every single point you brought up sufficiently, but in short. The primary criterion of classification would be language. I don't think there is anyone serious out there who would claim that Minoans were Greeks, especially when we don't have any decipherment of the Minoan scripts. Aegean yes, Greek no. Mycenaeans were though, so were Dorians, and others who spoke a dialect of Greek as a mother tongue.

As for the comprehension of ancient Greek dialects, i do understand much of Homeric and probably half of Classical Greek without having studied any ancient Greek in school by the way, while for Koine would be around 85% i would say. But still, what does this have to do with the classification of Greek? Yes, there have been varying linguistic, religious, architectural and genetic changes throughout the millennia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't classify these earlier people and civilizations as Greek. We are not calling them modern Greek after all. Furthermore, there even exist differences between modern Greeks by the way, this isn't just an ancient phenomenon, but despite those differences we all identify as Greeks nonetheless.

It would indeed be absurd to associate Turks with Hittites, but then again, at the very least Turks aren't even linguistically associated with them, among other things.

I could touch upon everything, but again i am trying to be short because i think you misunderstood my respond to your post.

[Yetos]

Empathy, sympathy, let’s not get personal.
You are not a psychologist.......
You hypotheses about Vucidol , is still work in progress never to proven it seems.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

for someone who never read the posts here in forum,
for someone that never accepts science,
but always provides his agenda,

for this guy, (you), there is no hope.

The origin of Hellenes from Vucedol is proven by Blegen at 1928.
Moreover Georgiev added the early creation of Hellenes from Greco-Brygians in this same path.

I am posting it once again,



and a summary in Greek,
I wish I could find it in English.






And for the rest.

Gibutas model for Greece seems a paradox, an atopon, except if Myceneans were IEnised
Renfrew theory seems better fit, but it is generally abandoned,
Ivanof & Camkrelidze theory seems quite interesting, especially for Myceneans and only Myceneans, mostly due to gennetics, but not for rest Hellenes,
Diakonov theory, no matter strange, is very suitable to the area.


Now Blevins13 ,
Say whatever you want, but It is proven to you by 2 sides, archaiological and linguistic. and waiting for genetics, That the branch of Selloi- Helloi-Hellenes of the later Greek nation, from whom the Dorians were subgroup. is originated from Lower Danube, and Vucedol. but already existed in South-Central Balkans milleniums before the return of Temenidae.

2 Descents to Greece

1. The Descent of Greco-Brygians and lower -South of Danube populations, before Myceneans
2, The Descent of Dorians from mountain and continental Greece to S Greece, around 911 BC, after Mycenean collapse, to start the Greek unification movement.


the years-centuries around 911 BC is the start of what we call Greek civilization. the estimation time of Dorian descent. etc, and finishes at 776 BC with possible first Olympic games to Olympia. no matter existed other games much older.
as we consider start of Rome's unification the 750 BC about, etc etc etc.