bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,367
- Reaction score
- 1,402
- Points
- 113
how, for heavens sake does a thread re steppe and western europe end up quarreling about ancient Greeks and Romans?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i think noone really cares if someone is european or not, not even the nordicists. they care about the "northern european" phenotype or whatever. they hate near east because it simply doesn't fit in there and i'm sry but i just disagree that it makes sense to tell such people how different anatolia neolithic or CHG was from modern near eastern people. especially when we consider that the phenotype of those ancient people would probably not be considered much better or even worse by them.@Ailchu,
I try to clarify what I wrote last week, hoping not to open up new controversies. But on some things I want to be direct.
When I refer to those who resent any Middle Eastern roots - including the more archaic, natural and widespread ones - I have in mind mainly the Nordicist groups who get hives just thinking about them.
You would find plenty of such examples in many blogs and other social media over the years. Some of the funniest ones I saw operating a few weeks ago on some amateur Facebook group, when someone posted renderings of the faces of some Yamnaya men from the kurgans of Boldyrevo and Berezhnovka, brought up after some recent studies had identified the people of the steppes as having not particularly rosy skin and un-Northern features. And from the deep North the queries and distinctions began.
I remember that even here on Eupedia these portraits were posted for discussion, perhaps by Jovialis himself if I remember correctly. Now it may be that the author of those renderings deliberately and provocatively accentuated those southern characters, I really don't know. The fact is - and I laugh thinking about it - that two of those Yamnayas remind me respectively of Antonio Bassolino - a former mayor of Naples - and Gigi Pistilli, a famous Italian actor known to the general public and famous for having starred in some of Sergio Leone's westerns. Neither of them is particularly hyperborean - on the contrary - and if all this were scientifically confirmed, I'm imagining the belly aches and despair of those who for years passed them off as ante litteram land Vikings swarming from the steppes. It can't be easy for them to discover or even to come to grips with the hypothesis that these supposed ancient masters of the world and of war (only some of them? or all of them?) didn't look like the powerful and famous He-Man of the Mattel puppets, but rather like some anonymous and rather humble Greek, Albanian, Italian peasant, shepherd or fisherman..., people who would be Europeans in a manner of speaking, according to the canons of the Nordicists. They don't like this fact and they have to be asked for the reasons.
For opposite reasons but with convergent results there are the Levantinists. Their motto is in practice "ex Oriente lux": if the Nordicists dream of expelling the South Europeans from the group of what would be genuinely European, the Levantinists expand their range of action and their genetic, cultural and historical influences to an unbelievable extent, practically watering down or eliminating the presence of any element proper to Southern Europe, which has matured and developed autonomously here. Certainly, in the Middle East there are the Neolithic Anatolian and CHG components and their original cores, but other components have also arrived that have made the history, genetics and culture of the current Middle Easterners very different from those of Southern Europeans. The vice of Levantinists is to tell things by halves, playing on the concept of the common ancestral geographical origin of what we call the Middle East and concealing all that has passed there in terms of mergers, ethnic changes, repopulation. This is not very scientific and belongs more to the armoury of sophistry and mystification.
Holding all these instances together is the ultra-progressive intelligentsia, which makes these pesudorgomentations its own in order to drive forward precise internationalist political agendas, which I have already written about and which southern Europeans should pay for in the near future, and even now.
i think noone really cares if someone is european or not, not even the nordicists. they care about the "northern european" phenotype or whatever. they hate near east because it simply doesn't fit in there and i'm sry but i just disagree that it makes sense to tell such people how different anatolia neolithic or CHG was from modern near eastern people.
that goes for northern european nordicists. you forgot another quite important group, the southern european "nordicists". they hate on near east for the same reason as northern european nordicists hate on southern europe. and they are just as numerous as the others.
what? so you're saying there is some kind of northern european plan to destroy southern europe?
can you explain what argument of mine you are referring to? again, i never made this exclusively about southern europeans so what is your point?Also, even Englishmen have more Anatolian_N-like ancestry than many people in the Near east; they also have CHG via Yamnaya-like ancestry. So your argument is completely ignorant.
can you explain what argument of mine you are referring to? again, i never made this exclusively about southern europeans so what is your point?
and why should it matter who has more anatolian neoltihic?
Furthermore, it is a fact to say that Anatolian_N is more prevalent in Southern Europe than Turkey for example due to later mixing, and that Near easterners are different because of substantial Natufian and SSA, as well as different admixture rates. So why is saying a fact offensive to you, or make you think there is some kind of nefarious intention behind it?
Also, nobody said it should matter, who has the most, other than for intellectual curiosity, and scientific and archeological purposes. The point I was making that you can't say Anatolian_N and CHG make exclusive to Southern Europeans and Near easterners, because it exists in Northern Europeans too, and there is even more Anatolian_N in some Northern Europeans, than Near easterners. Despite the fact that CHG and Anatolian_N originated thousands of years ago in the geographic/cultural designation of what we call today, the near east.
even if it is more prevalent in southern europe than in turkey now, what's the difference? didn't you agree that it is ultimately a near eastern genetic group?
Yes, and what is near eastern? A geographic position? They didn't even have terms like that when these people existed.
The term Near East was coined in the 19th century when Westerners divided the “Orient” into three parts: the Near East, the Middle East, and the Far East. The Near East included the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans, while the Middle East ranged between the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia—quite a small region compared with what we consider to be the Middle East today. (The Far East encompassed Asian countries facing the Pacific Ocean.) As Europe geared up for World War II, however, the term Middle East began to be used by the British military to refer to both regions. Middle East soon became the dominant term.
https://www.britannica.com/story/ar...Europe geared up for,to refer to both regions.
Population | |
African | 0.43 Pct |
Amerindian | 1.72 Pct |
ASI | 1.38 Pct |
Basal | 21.15 Pct |
Iran-Mesolithic | 6.21 Pct |
Neolithic | 25.7 Pct |
Oceanic | 0.17 Pct |
EHG | 28.97 Pct |
SEA | 3.57 Pct |
Siberian | 5.16 Pct |
WHG | 5.54 Pc |
yes. modern middle easterners are not anatolian neolithic but you CAN NOT simply disconnect those 2 from each other to calm down for example nordicists who do not like modern near eastern people. it is wrong simple as that. what facts are you talking about that would justify this and make this a reasonable thing to do?
yes, southern europeans are not near easterners. why do you guys keep repeating this eventhough i never claimed the opposite? i never even talked about southern europeans specifically.
I HAVEN'T DISCONNECTED ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. I have said, ad nauseam, that all West Eurasians have DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS of similar groups. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Do we all have to keep saying that a lot of European ancestors originated in what is now called the Middle East. like we have a damn verbal tick or something? WE KNOW. EVERYONE KNOWS. Even the WHG and EHG came from elsewhere. Europe was a SINK, not an ORIGIN.
Just DROP this obsessive need to make everyone here keep saying it like a mantra.
What the hell is bugging you? Be honest about it so we can all move on and discuss how steppe admixed people (up to 50% CHG/Iran Neo like) brought about a dark age. That's more on topic than this nonsense you bring up on every thread. It's like spamming. All this jabbering is not going to change the fact that modern Near Easterners and Europeans, even the most Southern of Europeans, are NOT the same.
If your concern is attitudes in Europe about immigration from the Near East, take it to a politics thread. That is more about the availability of jobs, the spending on social welfare programs, and a completely different culture. Telling people we share ancient ancestry is NOT going to change people's minds about it. Like I said, stop spamming this on every thread and go to the many threads here on immigration.
Talking to you is a complete waste of time because you are incapable of logic. Like most people with an agenda everything comes from a place of emotion, not reason.
Everyone can, of course, do as they wish, but as for me this guy is going on permanent ignore. If no one answers him maybe eventually he'll get the message.
I HAVEN'T DISCONNECTED ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. I have said, ad nauseam, that all West Eurasians have DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS of similar groups. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Do we all have to keep saying that a lot of European ancestors originated in what is now called the Middle East. like we have a damn verbal tick or something? WE KNOW. EVERYONE KNOWS. Even the WHG and EHG came from elsewhere. Europe was a SINK, not an ORIGIN.
Just DROP this obsessive need to make everyone here keep saying it like a mantra.
What the hell is bugging you? Be honest about it so we can all move on and discuss how steppe admixed people (up to 50% CHG/Iran Neo like) brought about a dark age. That's more on topic than this nonsense you bring up on every thread. It's like spamming. All this jabbering is not going to change the fact that modern Near Easterners and Europeans, even the most Southern of Europeans, are NOT the same.
If your concern is attitudes in Europe about immigration from the Near East, take it to a politics thread. That is more about the availability of jobs, the spending on social welfare programs, and a completely different culture. Telling people we share ancient ancestry is NOT going to change people's minds about it. Like I said, stop spamming this on every thread and go to the many threads here on immigration.
Talking to you is a complete waste of time because you are incapable of logic. Like most people with an agenda everything comes from a place of emotion, not reason.
Everyone can, of course, do as they wish, but as for me this guy is going on permanent ignore. If no one answers him maybe eventually he'll get the message.
That is more about the availability of jobs, the spending on social welfare programs, and a completely different culture. Telling people we share ancient ancestry is NOT going to change people's minds about it.
true. still, they originated there and as a result the people who live there now still have an affinity for those ancient populations. far more, than other ancient westeurasian populations had with those 2 groups from near east. also more affinity than many europeans. in case of the english, they might have more anatolian neolithic than people from levant in your graphic, but in terms of overall affinity the levant is probably still much closer to anatolian neoltithic than the english are.
I had remained outside because in my eyes it is just useless bickering if one doesn't state exactly what one is claiming, and I had the impression that the discussion was around empty referential terms, but this comment here makes one claim clear enough: since Anatolian_N originated in the near east and it is the majority component in southern Europeans, plus CHG/Iran_N, hence we must state both that the ancient "old Europeans" (pre-steppe that is) were genetically more akin to modern day's middle easteners and that southern Europeans are genetically more similar to modern day middle easteners than to north Europeans.
Both are simple statements that are to be answered according to the available evidence, and the answer is precisely "no" for the majority of Europe: maybe a far north Russian is more distant from EEF than some modern day middle easteners but even Englishmen seem to be closer than any middle eastener, at least from what appears in the classical western eurasia PCA (I have seen no FST on the matter),
and surely any south european is closer to EEF than any middle eastener.
As for the second statement, from the FSTs I've seen and some papers, Europe seems a subgroup in the western eurasian cluster, so it does seem that your average north European is genetically more similar to your average south european than even the most european-shifted near eastener (barring individuals with recent european ancestry)
this was a point I raised when in another time Ailchu was defending Taleb's fantasies that Lebanon has more right to ancient Greece heritage than north Europe, grounding his claim on the idea that genetically near easteners are closer to ancient Greeks than north Europeans, which, if one accepts to play according to these very rules, is false for the majority of Europe ( By the FST I've seen the average German and "eastern european"[ I assume poles or something similar] by FST is closer to south Italians, who are an optimal proxy for ancient Greeks, than the latter are to any near eastern group, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730349/ ).
What I do not like though is when one makes false genetic statements to back up his political stance.
2-There is no L51 in the steppes, it does not matter, surely it is because Z2013 was the elite and the poor L51 were simply not buried in Kurgans, or maybe we are talking about a single L51 man so that it is practically impossible to locate him, or maybe patrilinearity and exogamy are responsible for having concealed this lineage and therefore for preventing male genetic continuity between Yamnaya CWC and BBC.
The founder of the R1b-L23 haplogroup (R1b1a1a2a) was born on the Western Steppe (Pontic-Caspian Steppe) around 4,400 BC (6.4 kya). R1b-L51 (R1b1a1a2a1) is its descendant founded in Central Europe around 5,000 years ago, which is why a L51 sample has not been found among the steppe herders. Z2013 is another descendant of R1b-L23.
Ironically, threads about ancient Greeks and Romans tend to be taken over by discussions about the steppe, despite the fact it was a minority component.how, for heavens sake does a thread re steppe and western europe end up quarreling about ancient Greeks and Romans?
This thread has been viewed 12358 times.