The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.


 
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-...-German-auxiliaries-serving-in-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.

main-qimg-36e25fc57ef6d0aa0ff1f1049e4ee152


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.
 
All conquests are cruel, the Romans took 200 years to conquer Iberia, many peoples were defeated and made pacts, others like the Celtiberians of Numantia were exterminated and preferred to die of hunger and throw their children into the flames rather than surrender. They defeated Quintus Fulvius Nobilior and his 30,000 legionaries, went to Rome to make a pact and the Senate betrayed them. Then resisted for 20 years and after defeating seven other consuls sent by the Roman Senate, the new Consul Scipio “the African” arrived, and the first thing he did was to cut off the hands of 200 children who helped rebuild the walls of Segeda- The Roman governors were specialists in robbing and extorting the subjugated peoples. Augustus showed no mercy to the defeated and enslaved hundreds of Asturians and Cantabrians. The Basques were more practical (or cowardly), we made a pact with the Romans, helped them in the social war and managed to preserve our language, customs and traditions. We were never Romans and we never felt like Romans even though we were within the boundaries of the Empire.Although Trajan and Hadrian were Hispanic, we will always prefer to remember the Iberian heroes such as Viriato, Corocotta, Caro de Segeda, Retogenes, Hilerno, Indibil, Mandonio, etc. etc, who fought and died to defend their freedom. In addition, genetics has shown that the vast majority of Spaniards descend from those brave Iberian peoples and that the genetic legacy of Rome is very very very very small in Iberia.

The arguments that Angela uses are familiar to me, because they are exactly the same ones that we Spaniards used to defend our imperial conquests in America, Asia, Africa and Europe. That is, we use our cities, cathedrals, universities, roads, aqueducts, irrigation systems, improvements in agriculture and livestock, trade, etc. to justify our cruelty, our greed, the injustice of slavery, the encomiendas and the caste system. It is true that the Indians were cannibals, that they practiced hundreds of human sacrifices, that they enslaved other indigenous peoples, that they were stone age societies and that they were also very cruel, but I do not know if that serves to justify our imperial conquests-History cannot be judged with the moral values we have today, but we must also understand the resentment of the subjugated peoples-In reality, at least in the case of the Spaniards, everything boils down to three words, God, gold and glory.
 
I would not fight among ourselves, overall, we aren’t that different.

“” We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin:

I think there are people who hate Europe and hate ALL Europeans under the guise of open borders and Multiculturalism.
Doesn’t matter if you are Norwegian, Italian, Irish, Polish.
You practice that - you will have no country, just ask Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia and Israel. NO OPEN BORDERS FOR THEM.

There are people today who claim Europe must take in Millions upon Millions of 3rd world refuges – while other countries take in not one…. SEE ABOVE - Divide and conquer.

Just remember Europe was invaded by The North Africans for 700 years, the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Further Attila The Hun and Genghis Khan from the east.
 
All conquests are cruel, the Romans took 200 years to conquer Iberia, many peoples were defeated and made pacts, others like the Celtiberians of Numantia were exterminated and preferred to die of hunger and throw their children into the flames rather than surrender. They defeated Quintus Fulvius Nobilior and his 30,000 legionaries, went to Rome to make a pact and the Senate betrayed them. Then resisted for 20 years and after defeating seven other consuls sent by the Roman Senate, the new Consul Scipio “the African” arrived, and the first thing he did was to cut off the hands of 200 children who helped rebuild the walls of Segeda- The Roman governors were specialists in robbing and extorting the subjugated peoples. Augustus showed no mercy to the defeated and enslaved hundreds of Asturians and Cantabrians. The Basques were more practical (or cowardly), we made a pact with the Romans, helped them in the social war and managed to preserve our language, customs and traditions. We were never Romans and we never felt like Romans even though we were within the boundaries of the Empire.Although Trajan and Hadrian were Hispanic, we will always prefer to remember the Iberian heroes such as Viriato, Corocotta, Caro de Segeda, Retogenes, Hilerno, Indibil, Mandonio, etc. etc, who fought and died to defend their freedom. In addition, genetics has shown that the vast majority of Spaniards descend from those brave Iberian peoples and that the genetic legacy of Rome is very very very very small in Iberia.

The arguments that Angela uses are familiar to me, because they are exactly the same ones that we Spaniards used to defend our imperial conquests in America, Asia, Africa and Europe. That is, we use our cities, cathedrals, universities, roads, aqueducts, irrigation systems, improvements in agriculture and livestock, trade, etc. to justify our cruelty, our greed, the injustice of slavery, the encomiendas and the caste system. It is true that the Indians were cannibals, that they practiced hundreds of human sacrifices, that they enslaved other indigenous peoples, that they were stone age societies and that they were also very cruel, but I do not know if that serves to justify our imperial conquests-History cannot be judged with the moral values we have today, but we must also understand the resentment of the subjugated peoples-In reality, at least in the case of the Spaniards, everything boils down to three words, God, gold and glory.

I'm afraid you've got it a** backwards, as usual. My description was of the aftermath of the fall of civilization in Europe after the invasion of Barbarian hordes. You know, as if the American Indians somehow got to Spain and demolished it, or armed Syrians got in and did it. Of course Spain was invaded by the Moors, and I'm sure that there was death and destruction, but at least their civilization was superior.

The way Rome treated its conquered peoples was infinitely superior to the way the Spaniards treated the people of the New World. Of course there was killing. That's what war is...However, if you accepted that you would pay taxes for what the Romans provided, there was no problem; no racism, no second class citizens. In three generations the conquered were proud to call themselves Romans. If you read any books about the Roman Empire you would know that. It was called Romanization. There are entire books written on it, not that you'll ever read them.

There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison with what Spain or Portugal, for that matter, did in the New World. Those natives that didn't die of our diseases were virtually enslaved on haciendas. No citizenship for them. No equal rights with Spaniards or Criolos, and a color stratification caste system which still exists today.
 
@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.
 
I'm afraid you've got it a** backwards, as usual. My description was of the aftermath of the fall of civilization in Europe after the invasion of Barbarian hordes. You know, as if the American Indians somehow got to Spain and demolished it, or armed Syrians got in and did it. Of course Spain was invaded by the Moors, and I'm sure that there was death and destruction, but at least their civilization was superior.

The way Rome treated its conquered peoples was infinitely superior to the way the Spaniards treated the people of the New World. Of course there was killing. That's what war is...However, if you accepted that you would pay taxes for what the Romans provided, there was no problem; no racism, no second class citizens. In three generations the conquered were proud to call themselves Romans. If you read any books about the Roman Empire you would know that. It was called Romanization. There are entire books written on it, not that you'll ever read them.

There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison with what Spain or Portugal, for that matter, did in the New World. Those natives that didn't die of our diseases were virtually enslaved on haciendas. No citizenship for them. No equal rights with Spaniards or Criolos, and a color stratification caste system which still exists today.

Well, you have described the Roman Empire in an idyllic way, (you said that everyone within the borders of the Empire felt proud to be a Roman), and I have simply reminded you the greed, cruelty and dishonesty of the Roman governors and their legionnaires because the Roman conquest was a disaster for the Iberian and Celtiberian cultures-Centuries later the Spaniards took revenge by sacking Rome and expelling the French from Italy. Some soldiers beheaded a statue of Scipio and took the head to the province of Soria (where Numantia is located) as a symbol of the heroism of the Numantines. Sicily, Sardinia, Naples and Lombardy belonged for hundreds of years to the Spanish Empire and thousands of men from those territories fought as volunteers in the Tercios of Infantry. Do you think they felt very Spanish?

Of course there were castes and social systems, I suppose you have heard about Roman citizenship, and about free, federated and stipendiary cities. The Hispano-Roman nobility was very rich, the great Andalusian haciendas supplied oil, wine, wool and horses to a good part of the Empire, but the Romans were especially interested in two things, gold and silver. Exactly the same things that the Spaniards were looking for in America. At least we debated in the Cortes the justice or injustice of the conquest, and the Laws of Indies protected the Indians from the first moment of the conquest, even though we were fighting against very cruel peoples who sacrificed hundreds of Spaniards to their Gods.

And regarding the Muslim invasion, it was a real disaster, famine, death and destruction. Year after year for 700 years, the peasants of northern Spain after harvesting their crops went to war against the Moors of Granada. That turned us into an ultra-warrior society and when we finished with the Moors we continued conquering in Africa, the Mediterranean and America because we did not know how to do anything else.
 
@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.
 
@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.

This is completely off topic. Open a new thread for the history of Rome and their subjects.

The reason for not conquering Germania when Rome could were practical.

Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus in AD 14, decided that Germania was a far less developed land, possessing few villages and only a small food surplus, and therefore was not currently important to Rome. Conquering Germania would require a commitment too burdensome for the imperial finances and an excessive expenditure of military force.

Rhine was a more practical boundary for the Roman Empire than any other river in Germania. Armies on the Rhine could be supplied from the Mediterranean Sea via the Rhône, Saône, and Mosel, with only a brief area of portage. Armies on the Elbe, however, would had to have been supplied by extensive overland routes or by ships travelling the hazardous Atlantic. Economically, the Rhine already had towns and sizable villages at the time of the Gallic conquest. The Rhine was significantly more accessible from Rome and better equipped to supply sizable garrisons than the regions beyond.

Rome chose instead of rule directly in Germania east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, exert indirect influence by appointing client kings, which was cheaper than military campaigns. Italicus, nephew of Arminius, was appointed king of the Cherusci; Vangio and Sido became vassal princes of the powerful Suebi, etc. So with the trade and acculturation of the elites, a peaceful romanization could be carried out. When indirect methods proved insufficient to control the Germanic tribes beyond the Rhine, Roman emperors occasionally led devastating punitive campaigns deep into Germania. One of them, led by the Roman emperor Maximinus Thrax, resulted in a Roman victory in AD 235 at the Battle at the Harzhorn Hill, located in the modern German state of Lower Saxony, east of the Weser river, between the towns of Kalefeld and Bad Gandersheim.

So Angela, I don’t see anything unusual in this history. As Rome lost it might, German tribes sized their opportunity. Societies have their cycles, nothing last forever.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
This is completely off topic. Open a new thread for the history of Rome and their subjects.

The reason for not conquering Germania when Rome could were practical.

Tiberius, who succeeded Augustus in AD 14, decided that Germania was a far less developed land, possessing few villages and only a small food surplus, and therefore was not currently important to Rome. Conquering Germania would require a commitment too burdensome for the imperial finances and an excessive expenditure of military force.

Rhine was a more practical boundary for the Roman Empire than any other river in Germania. Armies on the Rhine could be supplied from the Mediterranean Sea via the Rhône, Saône, and Mosel, with only a brief area of portage. Armies on the Elbe, however, would had to have been supplied by extensive overland routes or by ships travelling the hazardous Atlantic. Economically, the Rhine already had towns and sizable villages at the time of the Gallic conquest. The Rhine was significantly more accessible from Rome and better equipped to supply sizable garrisons than the regions beyond.

Rome chose instead of rule directly in Germania east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, exert indirect influence by appointing client kings, which was cheaper than military campaigns. Italicus, nephew of Arminius, was appointed king of the Cherusci; Vangio and Sido became vassal princes of the powerful Suebi, etc. So with the trade and acculturation of the elites, a peaceful romanization could be carried out. When indirect methods proved insufficient to control the Germanic tribes beyond the Rhine, Roman emperors occasionally led devastating punitive campaigns deep into Germania. One of them, led by the Roman emperor Maximinus Thrax, resulted in a Roman victory in AD 235 at the Battle at the Harzhorn Hill, located in the modern German state of Lower Saxony, east of the Weser river, between the towns of Kalefeld and Bad Gandersheim.

So Angela, I don’t see anything unusual in this history. As Rome lost it might, German tribes sized their opportunity. Societies have their cycles, nothing last forever.



Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

Watch your mouth you ill-bred boor. You don't make the rules around here.

Just have to love the complete inconsistency. The man who says it's off topic proceeds to write paragraphs on it.

Btw, a lot of my posts have been in response to what other people have said.

Go away if you don't like it.
 
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.
 
Watch your mouth you ill-bred boor. You don't make the rules around here.

Just have to love the complete inconsistency. The man who says it's off topic proceeds to write paragraphs on it.

Btw, a lot of my posts have been in response to what other people have said.

Go away if you don't like it.

You are off topic, and insulting me for no apparent reason. You make the rules here and you are not following them. Can we came back to the study at hand without insults?


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
You are off topic, and insulting me for no apparent reason. You make the rules here and you are not following them. Can we came back to the study at hand without insults?


Sent from my ****** using Eupedia Forum

stick to the rules Blevins :

Rome was perfect and a blessing to all.
All those who resisted, and especially Germanic tribes were the evil in person.

Got it?
 
stick to the rules Blevins :

Rome was perfect and a blessing to all.
All those who resisted, and especially Germanic tribes were the evil in person.

Got it?

Not enough insults, wont be effective. Gotta discipline the peasants. :LOL:
 
@ 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

ok, next time I'll call upon you when the thread derails
I've been insulted more than enough here
 
Can you guys stop derailing this thread with history instead of genetics? There is a section for history on this site and you can argue ad infinitum there if you want.
 
Let me help this thread along, perhaps some people have missed this:

Dodecad Goble 13:

Code:
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:

Code:
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
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 117475 times.

Back
Top