The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you Gaska! You said what I was about to say. Who cares what the alleles are predicting? They predict that I have blue gray eyes like my father but I have dark brown eyes like my mother. As far as R1b-269 not being found among the Greeks, should we not wait a little bit until more samples are analyzed?

May I ask you this, did you use HIrisPlex S for your eye and skin color prediction? And overall how accurate was it? Anyway, I personally do care a lot about accuracy including phenotype prediction. When I read a scientific study, I want to be informed and educated. Therefore, I dislike the idea of being misinformed by researchers who interpret the data in a biased, misleading or inaccurate way. The thing is, that Phenotype prediction is a science that is new and still in its infancy which means that mistake can happen. Thus, we probably have to take phenotype prediction with a grain of salt.
 
not the same thing .....
e-v13 are european it doesn't matter that e-m78 originated in north east africa
what matteres is the last mutation / snp
and it originated in europe wether balkan or southwest europe
L3d1b1 is an african mtdna
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L3d1b1/
i dont know why people here take offence by it
after said all that doesn't effect this bronze age individual autosomal profile
which i say again was very likely like mik15 southern european

You've obviously missed some comments here about half black Mycenaeans, and Aegeans being predicted as dark because of SSA influence. I personally don’t take offense at the detected African mtdna. However, I strongly disagree with how Gaska spin this fact into because MIK08 had an African mtdna that somehow proves, that the Mycenaeans from the Lazaridis paper had real SSA admixture, and that the authors therefore predicted the 3 Aegeans with no African mtDNA, as being dark. It doesn't make sense. You understand that the hp not always matches the ethnicity or the autosomal profile, but many don't.
 
You've obviously missed some comments here about half black Mycenaeans, and Aegeans being predicted as dark because of SSA influence. I personally don’t take offense at the detected African mtdna. However, I strongly disagree with how Gaska spin this fact into because MIK08 had an African mtdna that somehow proves, that the Mycenaeans from the Lazaridis paper had real SSA admixture, and that the authors therefore predicted the 3 Aegeans with no African mtDNA, as being dark. It doesn't make sense. You understand that the hp not always matches the ethnicity or the autosomal profile, but many don't.


sometimes it is just bad authors/scribes ...like the ethiopions of the trojan wars by herodous

he states

Memnon and the "Aethiopians" ................these people are from Libya

it was Greek historian Hesiod who changed the term Aethiopians wrongly to Ethiopians
 
not the same thing .....
e-v13 are european it doesn't matter that e-m78 originated in north east africa
what matteres is the last mutation / snp
and it originated in europe wether balkan or southwest europe
L3d1b1 is an african mtdna
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L3d1b1/
i dont know why people here take offence by it
after said all that doesn't effect this bronze age individual autosomal profile
which i say again was very likely like mik15 southern european

not to mention that something beeing "european" or "african" has no real genetic meaning. those groups are geographic not genetic. at this point this haplgroup could be called anything.
 
not to mention that something beeing "european" or "african" has no real genetic meaning. those groups are geographic not genetic.
wasn't perseus wife partially ethiopian?

If you really believe that, your ignorance is inexcusable.

First of all, it is obvious that Europeans are primarily composed of various European Hunter-Gatherers, Anatolian Farmers, CHG, which are combined to form other constructs that we know as Steppe, EEF, etc. Plus there are some minor exotic admixture from outside of Europe. Nevertheless, they are clearly defined when compared to populations from SUB-SAHARAN Africa. Furthermore, according to Lazaridis' 2018 pre-print they all west Eurasians are defined by a paleolithic Caucasian population. Are you suggesting that SUB-SAHARAN African people are one in the same? Because that would be ridiculous.
 
The color discussion is stupid, the main question still remains, from where the Greek speakers came from!? We still have to wait, but Drew’s scenario is considered as an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
If you really believe that, your ignorance is inexcusable.

First of all, it is obvious that Europeans are primarily composed of various European Hunter-Gatherers, Anatolian Farmers, CHG, which are combined to form other constructs that we know as Steppe, EEF, etc. Plus there are some minor exotic admixture from outside of Europe. Nevertheless, they are clearly defined when compared to populations from SUB-SAHARAN Africa.

that may be true but it doesn't change the fact that "european" is a grouping that is based on geography and so is "african". they are not based on genetics. if that haplogroup is distributed outside of africa by now why call it "african"? or why not call it north african when it probably came from there?
 
If you really believe that, your ignorance is inexcusable.

First of all, it is obvious that Europeans are primarily composed of various European Hunter-Gatherers, Anatolian Farmers, CHG, which are combined to form other constructs that we know as Steppe, EEF, etc. Plus there are some minor exotic admixture from outside of Europe. Nevertheless, they are clearly defined when compared to populations from SUB-SAHARAN Africa. Furthermore, according to Lazaridis' 2018 pre-print they all west Eurasians are defined by a paleolithic Caucasian population. Are you suggesting that SUB-SAHARAN African people are one in the same? Because that would be ridiculous.

I am getting sick and tired of this Lysenkoist Marxist agenda. It is no better than a racist in my opinion. It is just more ignorant POLITICAL fanaticism.
 
that may be true but it doesn't change the fact that "european" is a grouping that is based on geography and so is "african". they are not based on genetics. if that haplgroup is distributed outside of africa by now why call it "african"?

Start some other thread on it, or find another one. This is not about this topic. I suggest the philosophy sub-forum!
 
The color discussion is stupid, the main question still remains, from where the Greek speakers came from!? We still have to wait, but Drew’s scenario is considered as an option.


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

Yes, let us get back on topic. This point about color has been discussed ad nauseam.

Anyone who continues to pollute this thread will have their post deleted, and they will be given an infraction for non-respect for moderator's warning.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand what's going on-Regarding the concerns of RealExpert-I have reread the thread and since post 98, you have used these terms.

“dark-skinned mean here- light brown/beige, olive complexion or reddish/ chestnut brown?
“The thing is the word "dark" can mean anything from light olive till very brown.”
“So, going by this paper BA Greeks could've been dark brown to black”.
“Although I always believed that ancient Aeagans were swarthy, I'd never ever imagined that they were that dark”
“That said, if the phenotype prediction from this study is 100% correct, that would make BA Greeks a lot darker than regular Middle Easterners or North Africans”
“When you read very dark to black you think automatically of this complexion. And these Arab Bedouins despite tan and SSA admixture, are not really very dark to black”
“Hence, what will stuck is that Ancient Greeks were very dark or black, and people will not think of Hirisplex very dark to black category, but they'll believe that Ancient Greeks looked like SSAs in terms of their complexion”

etc etc..

Other people have also participated in the debate in these terms

“Now we have markers for EBA and MBA, including a person with a lot of steppe, presumably among the early generations who admixed with steppe people, and what do you we find? We find black hair, dark eyes, and for skin ***mentation we find dark to very dark
Dark to black skin is a very surprising diagnostic, I think!”
“The dark and dark-black types, along with intermediate as well, were found in the Middle East (Bedouins, Druzes, and Palestinians from Israel), South Asia (Pakistan) and East Asia”.

And Gaska said

*Post200-“During the Bronze Age the phenotypes were very varied but light skin was already a fixed feature for all European regions
*Post233-“The matter of the darkness of the Mycenaeans seems of little importance to me although I recognize that there may be people interested in finding out the phenotype of our European ancestors”
*Post233-“Therefore it does not surprise me that some of them cannot be classified as fair skinned, although I believe that other samples will be, because in the Bronze Age the phenotypes in Europe were as varied as they are today”
*Post233-“That is why I have not given too much importance to swarthy Mycenaeans
*Post252-“Afrocentrists are just as boring as Nordicists

I have never seen a person so concerned about the skin color of a particular ancient culture. You in particular are a pain in the ass. What is it that really worries you, can you explain it to us? I think our Greek friends who participate in this forum have a lot of patience with you, because you are very annoying making reference to the different skin tones. Or are you just trying to provoke?

And please, don't put words that aren't mine in my mouth-I never said that MIK08 proves that the Mycenaeans from the Lazaridis paper had real SSA admixture, and that the authors therefore predicted the 3 Aegeans with no African mtDNA, as being dark. When I have used the term SSA? I said textually- This study has shown that there could be migrants or slaves of African origin in the Balkans BA-I have never mentioned the autosomal composition of that sample.
 
sometimes it is just bad authors/scribes ...like the ethiopions of the trojan wars by herodous

he states

Memnon and the "Aethiopians" ................these people are from Libya

it was Greek historian Hesiod who changed the term Aethiopians wrongly to Ethiopians
That is interesting: how do you know this?
 
not to mention that something beeing "european" or "african" has no real genetic meaning. those groups are geographic not genetic. at this point this haplgroup could be called anything.

Please Jovialis, let me just answer Alichu who probably with good intentions loves to deny the biological reality of race/human genetic diversity. Looking solely at DNA test results, you can easily distinguish an English person from a Yoruba or a Chinese from an Australian Aborigine. This is an objective observation and not a social construct. Human genetic diversity does exist since there is a biological/genetic structure in humans. People are free to reject the categorization of human genetic diversity into racial groups, but that doesn't negate the reality of this diversity. The overall differences between the different human populations might be little, these differences are significant enough to make humans diverse and distinct in phenotype and genotype.

I'll quote geneticists who ask for the end of the denial of race for PC
reason.


Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity's chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.


We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind's common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.



Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.........


Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certainty on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as ***mentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).


https://www.nature.com/articles/461726a
 
Please Jovialis, let me just answer Alichu who probably with good intentions loves to deny the biological reality of race/human genetic diversity. Looking solely at DNA test results, you can easily distinguish an English person from a Yoruba or a Chinese from an Australian Aborigine. This is an objective observation and not a social construct. Human genetic diversity does exist since there is a biological/genetic structure in humans. People are free to reject the categorization of human genetic diversity into racial groups, but that doesn't negate the reality of this diversity. The overall differences between the different human populations might be little, these differences are significant enough to make humans diverse and distinct in phenotype and genotype.

I'll quote geneticists who ask for the end of the denial of race for PC
reason.


Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.











https://www.nature.com/articles/461726a

never denied that. but it still doesn't change that the groups "european" or "african" are not genetic groups. it is that simple. and it is not a philosophical question.
 
That is interesting: how do you know this?

I am not a linguist, but the Latins Diphthongs ‘ae’ and ‘oe’ are read like Portuguese sound of the vogal ‘e’. Example: ‘caelestis’ (‘celeste’ in Portuguese); ‘poena’ (‘pena’ in Portuguese); ‘Caesar’ (César in Portuguese). Than, I think that Aethiopians, Ethiopians are the same thing, that translated to Portuguese it will be ‘Etíopes’. As I said before, I can be wrong because I am not a linguist. It just what I think about.
 
I am not a linguist, but the Latins Diphthongs ‘ae’ and ‘oe’ are read like Portuguese sound of the vogal ‘e’. Example: ‘caelestis’ (‘celeste’ in Portuguese); ‘poena’ (‘pena’ in Portuguese); ‘Caesar’ (César in Portuguese). Than, I think that Aethiopians, Ethiopians are the same thing, that translated to Portuguese it will be ‘Etíopes’. As I said before, I can be wrong because I am not a linguist. It just what I think about.
The linguistic explanation is plausible, but I mean "where have you read it? Is there a source?". I ask because it is the first time I hear it. I know that Memnon swang between being represented as a black man (straight bantu, "lips and all") and as a caucasoid, because he was associated with Ethiopia but in the beginning it seems he was still imagined as "white" (his parents were Tithonus, Troyan, and Eos, a godess). If the initial place was "Aethiopia" instead of "Ethiopia" it would sound surprising to me, but would explain also why Memnon was depicted in different ways in subsequent epochs.
Naturally there need be more than a linguistic possibility to uphold the statement.
 
never denied that. but it still doesn't change that the groups "european" or "african" are not genetic groups. it is that simple. and it is not a philosophical question.

Geneticists use the term "European", "African" or "East Asian" not merely in a geographical sense, for a reason.Europe, for instance, has low genetic diversity unlike Africa. Therefore, all Europeans cluster pretty close to each other. However, in Africa all of its completely indigenous genetic clusters are greatly divergent from the indigenous components found outside Africa. Aside from the people from the Horn of Africa, most SSA people have only minor admixture from outside Africa. The SSA populations clearly form a separate group of peoples and cluster very much away from Europeans. Although there is a great genetic diversity within SSA, the pattern is that all other human outside SSA cluster much closer to each other than to any of those, basically forming a separate branch of humankind. So, "European" and "African" is a broadly genetic component. Hence, you won't find, for example, a native African that has the genetic make of any European and vise versa.​
 
not the same thing .....
e-v13 are european it doesn't matter that e-m78 originated in north east africa
what matteres is the last mutation / snp
and it originated in europe wether balkan or southwest europe
L3d1b1 is an african mtdna
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/L3d1b1/
i dont know why people here take offence by it
after said all that doesn't effect this bronze age individual autosomal profile
which i say again was very likely like mik15 southern european

I've told you before; stop putting words in my mouth or attributing racist motives to me. I wouldn't give a damn if I carried it, but carrying it doesn't mean one is African. It could be more than 200 years in the past and no trace of autosomal African dna could remain, as is the case in this situation.

Are you part of the agenda driven group of people on the internet who would love these people to have Levant and African dna? Sorry, whatever mtDna they carry, they DON'T. Period.

Btw, it's not having that kind of dna which is a problem; the problem is the motives of the people who WANT Southern Europeans to have it because they are secret racists, and you know it very well.

Give it up.

This is what always happens when ***mentation is discussed. People from both sides of the divide go mental.
 
Last edited:
The linguistic explanation is plausible, but I mean "where have you read it? Is there a source?". I ask because it is the first time I hear it. I know that Memnon swang between being represented as a black man (straight bantu, "lips and all") and as a caucasoid, because he was associated with Ethiopia but in the beginning it seems he was still imagined as "white" (his parents were Tithonus, Troyan, and Eos, a godess). If the initial place was "Aethiopia" instead of "Ethiopia" it would sound surprising to me, but would explain also why Memnon was depicted in different ways in subsequent epochs.
Naturally there need be more than a linguistic possibility to uphold the statement.

Well I really do not want to be part of this whole thread the way its going.

So thinking this is relevant, albeit barely fitting the timeline, and possibly missing it by 1000 years. Regarding Memnon:

The_Departure_of_Memnon_for_Troy._Greek%2C_circa_550-525_B.C..jpg


The departure of Memnon for Troy. Greek, circa 550-525 BC. Black-figure vase. Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, Belgium.

7967.jpg

This mid 2nd Century CE bust portrays Memnon, the Aethiopian pupil of the Roman statesman Herodes Atticus. It was found in the Villa of Herodes Atticus in Arcadia, Greece but its current home is the Altes Museum in Berlin.


The first depiction is circa 700 years after supposedly the Trojan War. Second one 1500 years. So take that with a grain of salt.

What I take from this is what both Greeks and Romans considered an African appearance.
What I also get from the first image, is that the people creating the vase had an awareness of how they looked different from Memnon. Both in skin color as well as overall morphology.

Again. I would rather not get embroiled in the rest of the arguments going on, since I feel they are counterproductive. But since Memnon and Aethiopians are mentioned, I think its relevant. And also proves the point that these ancient people did not see themselves similar to Memnon, in skin color or appearance.

Context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memnon_(mythology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodes_Atticus

PS: Anyone else having issues editing their posts, where a second edit, undoes the first?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 117498 times.

Back
Top