The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.

[bicicleur 2]

Right. This from the man who once hinted that starving people from the Middle East trying to reach Europe by boat should be allowed to drown, and doesn't want even one starving child to be let into his country, a country, by the way, which accepted lots of Middle Easterners when they needed cheap labor, but he wants them now to all be sent back.

Do you hear yourself? Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever? You say the Roman government deserved to have its whole civilization crushed, a civilization from which a huge chunk of Europe benefited and was loyal to, for behavior you've advocated in your own time by your countrymen against Middle Easterners and Africans. Of all the hypocrisy...

Looking at it strictly as a matter of practicality, do you think Rome could have absorbed all the starving Barbarian hordes fleeing from the Huns?

You don't even realize that these Roman officials could have been Gauls or border Gemans who might have been your ancestors. Do you think they were Italians on those borders by that time?

first of all you're twisting my words and changing the subject, this way can go on and on and on

second you told just 1 or 2 days ago that everyone within the whole Roman empire was a Roman
and do you think people in Italy weren't cheering the death of 10.000 Visigoths ?

[bicicleur 2]

You should know after my thousands of posts here that I don't state as fact something that I cannot prove.

See:
https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/c...nBronzeAge.pdf

Is the University of Pennsylvania a good enough source for you? Note the word DESTRUCTION.

Also please read the following article.

https://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/p1b.html

How many times does it have to be proved to you, pray tell?

"The development observable during the second phase of the Early Bronze Age comes to an end during the third and last phase of the Period (2200-2000 B.C.). Evident are destructions, the abandonment of settlements and a general disorganisation that has been traditionally associated with the incursion of new populations. The Middle Bronze Age (2000-1600 B.C.) is characterised initially by an economic and cultural decline,as can be seen in the poor remains of the settlements and in the poverty of the burials."

traditionally associated with : meaning : we have no proof but people like you always blaim the steppe people

do you have more details : when exactly and in what parts of Greece did the destructions happen?

and what about the diseases you claim?

[bicicleur 2]

I wasn't aware you were constrained to come here or to read the thread.

maybe we should stick to the facts of the thread and stop phantasising about those brute herders from the steppe with all kinds of diseases

you're highjacking the thread

[Angela]

first of all you're twisting my words and changing the subject, this way can go on and on and on

second you told just 1 or 2 days ago that everyone within the whole Roman empire was a Roman
and do you think people in Italy weren't cheering the death of 10.000 Visigoths ?

You're the one who brought up the Visigoths and how the refusal to let in and feed the starving Germanic tribes justified the destruction of all of Europe within the Empire. You expect that to go un-answered? You expect everyone to ignore all the things you said about not letting in any of the refugees from war torn Syria or other places around the world and the hypocrisy that shows?

You also conveniently forget that the Germanics they did let in were among the first to take up the sword against those people who heeded their begging and let them in. A lot of them WERE let in and re-settled. Your researching is highly selective. Just like Arminius.

See:
https://www.quora.com/Did-Arminius-b...the-Roman-army

Even the Germanics who were in the army and had sworn oaths to the Empire turned on Rome. Letting them in was like letting in tens of thousands of armed Syrian and Iraqi soldiers into Europe. It was a stupid idea. They should have remembered the example of Arminius.



What I described happened in ALL those areas in Europe. Do you get it? The documentation is absolutely crystal clear.

You also persist in not understanding the cultural transformation of Europe. I have pointed you to articles and books showing that within three generations people in Britannia, Spain, France, BELGICA, considered themselves ROMANS. That was their identity first and foremost. Then, if asked, they might name their region. People who would say they were from Italia had a certain prestige, but that's it.

This is what having an agenda is like. All the proof in the world can be submitted, but they just won't accept it because it disturbs their world view.

If it turns out that some or a lot of the Sea Peoples were Italian you don't think I would acknowledge the destruction they wrought and side with the great civilizations which they brought down?

[Angela]

traditionally associated with : meaning : we have no proof but people like you always blaim the steppe people

do you have more details : when exactly and in what parts of Greece did the destructions happen?

and what about the diseases you claim?

You asked for proof. I provided it, including the teaching curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania. You think these scholars are not basing their conclusions on ARCHAEOLOGY? They described what those archaeologists found.

It's clear you won't believe it because you don't want to believe it. You'll have some excuse for every paper I present so why should I bother.

Since you claim it's not true, find published papers that support your point of view.

[Angela]

maybe we should stick to the facts of the thread and stop phantasising about those brute herders from the steppe with all kinds of diseases

you're highjacking the thread

I'M highjacking the thread? You're the one making nonsensical claims and asking questions, and, btw, throwing out ad hominids all over the place.

I'm merely answering the questions you post. You just don't like the factual answers because they prove you wrong.

Stop it and there will be no need for me to respond.

[bicicleur 2]

You asked for proof. I provided it, including the teaching curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania. You think these scholars are not basing their conclusions on ARCHAEOLOGY? They described what those archaeologists found.

It's clear you won't believe it because you don't want to believe it. You'll have some excuse for every paper I present so why should I bother.

Since you claim it's not true, find published papers that support your point of view.

the papers don't provide any proof, not even a claim

they say the destructions are traditionaly associated with invading steppe people

they don't endorse this claim themselves

and nothing about diseases

we can go on and on like this

unless if you come up with something more substantial, I rest my case

[Angela]

the papers don't provide any proof, not even a claim

they say the destructions are traditionaly associated with invading steppe people

they don't endorse this claim themselves

and nothing about diseases

we can go on and on like this

unless if you come up with something more substantial, I rest my case

You don't get to rest your case with a complete fabrication. Or maybe you just didn't bother to read it?

Read carefully now...

Who arrived at that time, Bicicleur??? Are you freaking kidding me? Plus, later on it specifically mentions migrations.

"To this same period belong the graves of Leukas in the Ionian Sea, with their rich funerary equipment. In Mainland Greece, Boeotian Orchomenos beside the Kopais lake, Lerna in the Argolid and Aegina are among the important centres of this time -for the well-known Neolithic sites such as Sesklo and Lianokladi we have less evidence. In Attica there are many small but important settlements such as Raphina, Askitario and Ag. Kosmas. The imported objects found in these settlements provide evidence of their habitual communication with the Cyclades.

The development observable during the second phase of the Early Bronze Age comes to an end during the third and last phase of the Period (2200-2000 B.C.). Evident are destructions, the abandonment of settlements and a general disorganisation that has been traditionally associated with the incursion of new populations. The Middle Bronze Age (2000-1600 B.C.) is characterised initially by an economic and cultural decline,as can be seen in the poor remains of the settlements and in the poverty of the burials. "


From now on you are on permanent ignore as far as I'm considered. There is no profit to discussions with people who are uninformed, illogical, biased, and refuse to be persuaded of the truth because of their biases.

[bicicleur 2]

You don't get to rest your case with a complete fabrication. Or maybe you just didn't bother to read it?

Read carefully now...

Who arrived at that time, Bicicleur??? Are you freaking kidding me? Plus, later on it specifically mentions migrations.

"To this same period belong the graves of Leukas in the Ionian Sea, with their rich funerary equipment. In Mainland Greece, Boeotian Orchomenos beside the Kopais lake, Lerna in the Argolid and Aegina are among the important centres of this time -for the well-known Neolithic sites such as Sesklo and Lianokladi we have less evidence. In Attica there are many small but important settlements such as Raphina, Askitario and Ag. Kosmas. The imported objects found in these settlements provide evidence of their habitual communication with the Cyclades.

The development observable during the second phase of the Early Bronze Age comes to an end during the third and last phase of the Period (2200-2000 B.C.). Evident are destructions, the abandonment of settlements and a general disorganisation that has been traditionally associated with the incursion of new populations. The Middle Bronze Age (2000-1600 B.C.) is characterised initially by an economic and cultural decline,as can be seen in the poor remains of the settlements and in the poverty of the burials. "

obviuosly, this is all you have to conclude there was a violent invasion massive enough to create large destructions, and they were probably accompanied with diseases from the steppe
without them there would have been no decline nor destruction
the reason is, they had steppe DNA, what else could you expect?
they are destructive and they bring diseases

From now on you are on permanent ignore as far as I'm considered. There is no profit to discussions with people who are uninformed, illogical, biased, and refuse to be persuaded of the truth because of their biases.

that's fine by me
keep on living in you own superior world with your own superior DNA
and don't have your views challenged by any one who has inferior DNA

I hope you'll stop insulting me too
I have no time to react to all your insults

[real expert]

I'm quite familiar with the elementary school version.

One of the reasons, btw, for the move of the capital to the east was because the western Empire was under constant attack from attacking tribes to the east. Too expensive to keep fighting them off.

I would remind you that the Eastern Empire also had many issues, but they survived for another 1000 years because the hordes mostly poured into and devoured the west.

Their time would come, of course, no empire lasts forever, but the fall of any civilization to barbaric invaders from the periphery is never a cause for rejoicing. Like I said, I'm always for the civilized core, no matter the ethnicity involved.

No need to be rude and what I wrote wasn‘t elementary school vision. Historians and researchers still argue about what lead to the total collapse of the Western Roman Empire. I correctly pointed out, that the Germanic Barbarians were not the sole reason for the downfall of the Empire. Rome's armies were off guarding the far-flung territories of the empire. The empire's treasury was empty; and a government, which prided itself on providing both bread and entertainment for its citizens, had nothing left to give them when the Barbarians finally came. Certainly, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a loss, tragic and with disastrous consequences. However, I think is not fair to paint the Germanic, or Steppe folks as the villains of history. Remember, the Romans were imperialistic and conquerors, thus they were not peaceful hippies, either. Rome was a war machine and Romans destroyed, for instance, a highly civilized Carthage and Jerusalem. When going by historical records they killed 100 thousands of Jews and Gauls, if not more. But people think that as long cultures are civilized, advanced and not Barbarian their brutality isn't that bad. Besides, I hope you don’t take it personally when people disagree with you, and that you don’t harbor any anti-Germanic antipathy in your heart. Sometimes you appear to be unnecessarily harsh. Why? From my part, I was never disrespectful toward you nor do I have hard feelings.

[real expert]

You're the one who brought up the Visigoths and how the refusal to let in and feed the starving Germanic tribes justified the destruction of all of Europe within the Empire. You expect that to go un-answered? You expect everyone to ignore all the things you said about not letting in any of the refugees from war torn Syria or other places around the world and the hypocrisy that shows?

You also conveniently forget that the Germanics they did let in were among the first to take up the sword against those people who heeded their begging and let them in. A lot of them WERE let in and re-settled. Your researching is highly selective. Just like Arminius.

See:
https://www.quora.com/Did-Arminius-b...the-Roman-army

Even the Germanics who were in the army and had sworn oaths to the Empire turned on Rome. Letting them in was like letting in tens of thousands of armed Syrian and Iraqi soldiers into Europe. It was a stupid idea. They should have remembered the example of Arminius.



What I described happened in ALL those areas in Europe. Do you get it? The documentation is absolutely crystal clear.

You also persist in not understanding the cultural transformation of Europe. I have pointed you to articles and books showing that within three generations people in Britannia, Spain, France, BELGICA, considered themselves ROMANS. That was their identity first and foremost. Then, if asked, they might name their region. People who would say they were from Italia had a certain prestige, but that's it.

This is what having an agenda is like. All the proof in the world can be submitted, but they just won't accept it because it disturbs their world view.

If it turns out that some or a lot of the Sea Peoples were Italian you don't think I would acknowledge the destruction they wrought and side with the great civilizations which they brought down?

Well, Romans thought if you give Non-Romans the Roman citizenship that somehow makes them loyal to Rome. I think in good times that would be the case. But what if times get harsh? Would these Roman Brits, Gauls or Spaniards resort in tribalism and start to identify with their own tribe first? I don't know. The thing is, that the Germanic soldiers that fought for Rome had no emotional attachment to Rome and her ideals, thus they were only loyal to their own tribe. Today, you see plenty people of foreign origin who are born and raised, for instance, in Germany with German p+ass+port , but they still don't identify themselves with Germany, and they are only loyal to their ancestral home. The word p+ass+port was totally censored by google, btw.

[real expert]

@real expert,

To my knowledge only one group stabbed Rome in the back by swearing fealty and then massively attacking it: the Germans. There might be little hot spots here and there, but nothing major.

The other group who rebelled against Rome were the Zealots among the Jews. It wasn't what most Jews wanted, but they got caught in the cross-fire.

I blame the fact that Rome didn't really understand the whole "ONE GOD" thing. The Greeks before them didn't either. Rome thought it was being very tolerant, as it was for that era: you could believe in any God(s) you chose, in any way you chose, no matter how bizarre it seemed, so long as you gave tribute to the god Roma; it was just the personification of the state but Jews just wouldn't/couldn't do that.

They lived to regret the rebellion.

I have no hard feelings either. You're absolutely right that all conquests include death on both sides. I'm not a proponent of wars of conquest. Let me be clear about that. However, if you're going to be defeated, better to be defeated by the Romans than the steppe people, or the Germanic invasions, or the Vikings, or the Huns, or the Nazi invasions, or, as in the example given by Gaska, the Spanish and Portuguese in the New World etc.

Romanization is a fascinating and much studied topic. It's a fact that once the conquered peoples accepted the situation, within three generations they happily considered themselves "Romans"; all, it seems, except recently absorbed Germanics. The Romans thought they would be like the Gauls or the Britons or the Greeks and people of the Balkans after a while. They weren't.

Bear in mind, that nobody wants to be invaded and conquered. There were 3 Jewish- Roman wars where the Jews were brutally crushed. That illustrates that not only a few zealots wanted to be freed from Roman rule. The Greeks were also not happy when the Romans invaded them and destroyed Corinth. The Iberians kicked out the Moors and didn‘t thank them for their invasion. It‘s a matter of fact, that Spain and Portugal rose to global players and power after they got rid of the Moors. Therefore, you have to look at things from the perspective of the Barbarians and the invaded people, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Roman at all since they shaped and formed European cultural identity, and contributed a lot to the advancement of the continent. That said, we have to look at both sides of the story to understand history.

Anyway, Tacitus, a Roman historian wrote these critical words about Rome in Agricola.

But there are no other tribes to come; nothing but sea and cliffs and these more deadly Romans, whose arrogance you cannot escape by obedience and self-restraint. Robbers of the world, now that earth fails their all-devastating hands, they probe even the sea: if their enemy have wealth, they have greed; if he be poor, they are ambitious; East nor West has glutted them; alone of mankind they covet with the same passion want as much as wealth. To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a d****ation(desert) and they call it peace.

Ancient Romans were sometimes pretty critical of themselves.

[Angela]

Bear in mind, that nobody wants to be invaded and conquered. There were 3 Jewish- Roman wars where the Jews were brutally crushed. That illustrates that not only a few zealots wanted to be freed from Roman rule. The Greeks were also not happy when the Romans invaded them and destroyed Corinth. The Iberians kicked out the Moors and didn‘t thank them for their invasion. It‘s a matter of fact, that Spain and Portugal rose to global players and power after they got rid of the Moors. Therefore, you have to look at things from the perspective of the Barbarians and the invaded people, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Roman at all since they shaped and formed European cultural identity, and contributed a lot to the advancement of the continent. That said, we have to look at both sides of the story to understand history.

Anyway, Tacitus, a Roman historian wrote these critical words about Rome in Agricola.




Ancient Romans were sometimes pretty critical of themselves.

Indeed they were, and sometimes sadly naïve in their early glorification of the Noble Savages a la Rousseau, although sometimes I think they used those discourses precisely to criticize things in their own society.

Btw, I never said and didn't mean to imply that anyone likes being conquered. Some of my ancestors, the Ligures, were one of the worst hold outs, and suffered lots of deaths and deportations as a result. If I were able to time travel to that time, I would have told them not to resist, frankly. They lived far better lives under the Romans than before.

I also think I went to some lengths to delineate that the process of Romanization was largely successful. It's one of the reasons the Empire lasted as long as it did, in comparison to something like the Third Reich, which lasted what, twenty years? If you want a long lasting empire you don't try to exterminate the people you have conquered.

As I also pointed out, considering how many people they conquered, the only ones who stabbed them in the back were the Germans, and their other huge foes were the Jews. I never meant to imply that the Zealots were few in number, but the Jews were divided into at least three major groups: the Sadducees, rather pro-Rome, the Pharisees, very legalistically observant Jews who held themselves somewhat apart, and the Zealots. The Zealots were not the majority of the population. However, once the war(s) were joined it was a free for all, with Jew killing Jew as well Jews and Romans killing each other. As my Jewish friends often say: three Jews, four opinions. That's why the Knesset is so entertaining to watch. Sometimes I think Italians are much the same way.

You really ought to read some books or at least articles on the policy of Romanization. It was remarkably, although not unilaterally successful.

Now, maybe we should get back to the Italian samples, which raise questions as well as provide some answers.

[Jovialis]

@ All users

Back-seat moderation is antagonistic, especially when speaking to an actual moderator. Please do not do that. If you want to discuss the thread, than I suggest making the next post, one on the topic of the paper.

[Jovialis]

Let me help this thread along, perhaps some people have missed this:

Dodecad Goble 13:

EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01,0.21,0.04,1.72,0.12,18.85,0.26,50.11,0.15,0,23.54,5.01,0,0
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03,0.09,0,2.49,0,17.26,0,46.34,0.57,0,28.2,5.06,0,0
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02,0.35,0.44,1.12,0.33,11.9,0,40.29,0.55,0.21,15.91,28.9,0,0
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04,0.45,1.95,3.14,0,7.25,0,35.42,0.29,0.34,16.63,34.51,0,0
EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15,0.16,0,3.05,0.29,19.89,0.45,52.96,0,0,15.23,7.96,0,0.02
EBA_Minoan_Petras:Pta08,0,0,2.4,0.11,20.85,0.57,50,0.38,0,21.18,4.51,0,0

Dodecad K12b:

EBA_Minoan_Petras:Pta08,0,0,3.85,0.33,34.73,0.38,0.14,0.05,14.68,0.48,43.65,1.72
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01,0.13,0,2.62,0,36.59,0.3,0,0,13.35,0.53,45.02,1.45
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03,4.64,0,2.77,0,32.51,1.12,0,0,11.34,0.32,45.28,2.02
EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15,0,0,5.75,0.07,41.42,0.91,0,0.03,13.26,0.69,35.94,1.94
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02,2.02,0.51,1.68,0.46,32.46,23.57,0,0.25,7.97,0,30.09,1
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04,7.05,1.16,0.26,0,31.18,28.21,0,0.13,4.25,0.92,24.07,2.77

[ihype02]

Interesting. Given the results it is safe to assume that some differences between mainland Greeks and Greek islanders (as well as Sicilians and South Italians) are not solely due to medieval migrations, but also due to Bronze Age and (quite likely) Iron Age migrations.

That said, it seems to me quite of a coincidence that say, Thessalians are very identical to these Helladic Greeks. What probably happened is that the levels of Steppe admixture have remained the same regarding of some inevitable migrations. There were migrations from Northern Greece to Southern Greece and the way around. I can think of the Dorian invasion, as well as the Ionian colonies in Northern Greece. So the Steppe admixture was somewhat more diluted during the Classical Age. But the absorption of Slavs in the Middle Ages elevated the Steppe admixture levels once again.

Davidski said that Balkan samples from Macedonia in late antiquity were like the Thracian but with more Steppe ( because of Celts, Goths, Scythians etc.)


He also said about some Myceanean samples having like 0% to 30% steppe. (compare to 12% in present samples)
I believe those are the samples he was talking about?

[blevins13]

Let me help this thread along, perhaps some people have missed this:

Dodecad Goble 13:

EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01,0.21,0.04,1.72,0.12,18.85,0.26,50.11,0.15,0,23.54,5.01,0,0
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03,0.09,0,2.49,0,17.26,0,46.34,0.57,0,28.2,5.06,0,0
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02,0.35,0.44,1.12,0.33,11.9,0,40.29,0.55,0.21,15.91,28.9,0,0
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04,0.45,1.95,3.14,0,7.25,0,35.42,0.29,0.34,16.63,34.51,0,0
EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15,0.16,0,3.05,0.29,19.89,0.45,52.96,0,0,15.23,7.96,0,0.02
EBA_Minoan_Petras:Pta08,0,0,2.4,0.11,20.85,0.57,50,0.38,0,21.18,4.51,0,0

Dodecad K12b:

EBA_Minoan_Petras:Pta08,0,0,3.85,0.33,34.73,0.38,0.14,0.05,14.68,0.48,43.65,1.72
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou01,0.13,0,2.62,0,36.59,0.3,0,0,13.35,0.53,45.02,1.45
EBA_Cyclade_Koufanisi:Kou03,4.64,0,2.77,0,32.51,1.12,0,0,11.34,0.32,45.28,2.02
EBA_Helladic_Manika:Mik15,0,0,5.75,0.07,41.42,0.91,0,0.03,13.26,0.69,35.94,1.94
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log02,2.02,0.51,1.68,0.46,32.46,23.57,0,0.25,7.97,0,30.09,1
MBA_Helladic_Logkas:Log04,7.05,1.16,0.26,0,31.18,28.21,0,0.13,4.25,0.92,24.07,2.77

Based on MTA these Logkas samples are close north Italy than Greece. Can they be carriers of Greek language?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Maciamo]

If you guys cannot have a civilised discussion I am closing this thread.