Who Cares?
Junior Member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
Lets call it scientific skepticism. Maybe its something, maybe its nothing.
Macedonians
- Thread starter how yes no 2
- Start date
Who Cares?
Junior Member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
There's a thread by another member here on how to run qpAdm and I managed to make it run in my Jupyter Notebook but I was restricted to David Reichs files, because I had problems with conversion of raw data files (using plink2) to the acceptable format.
I don't have anything against David Reich personally but if the samples were made by the academics in Serbia, Bulgaria or Croatia (like the many early studies on genetics) then its here where I got the doubt because I don't believe they properly sampled the candidates. They probably took people that have some ancestry from Macedonia just based on surname, but did not look entire pedigree, and that person could be just 1/4 or 1/2 Macedonian, and the remaining part could be Serb, Bulgarian, Croat or other South Slav (who are obviously more northern and put them more closer to the 2nd population). Then my 2nd doubt is that they probably had bias towards some regions of Macedonia. That's why I want him to show me the research papers upon which he made such conclusion.
One such crazy research that I found was made by a Greek author (and a couple of colleagues) who made a study on medieval Albanians, where he used a SINGLE sample from medieval period of Macedonia (a female from 10th or 11th century who was quite northern in contrast to modern Macedonians and the most similar with current day Romanians, Serbs, and Bosniaks) to make comparison between modern and medieval Albanians using this as a norm for Macedonia of that time. So yeah, I can't take such studies seriously.
Last edited:
Dianatomia
Regular member
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Greek
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2a
This delves too much into Balkan skepticism. I won’t assume that every research for the last 15 years is sponsored by Bulgaria or something of the sort. Especially considering history, language and geography confirms the results.
I agree, and I stated this in an earlier post, that there was no "Greece." It was the Romans that started referring to the territory as "Greece" (Graeci), and it wasn't until Late Antiquity (c. 3rd - 7th centuries) that Hellenes referred to themselves as "Greek." Persians called them "Yaunas," as did the Hebrews (Yevanim) Turks, and Arabs, so there was no "Greece" during the time of Philip II and Alexander the Great. For the sake of argument, and defining the territory, let's just call it Greece.
It's disingenuous to characterize the Battle of Chaeronea as beating "some of those people." Why are you minimizing its importance? Philip II of Macedonia defeated a coalition of Greek city-states led by Thebes and Athens. By 338 bc Philip was well into the second decade of his methodical conquest of Greece establishing the Macedonian empire. Philip led a force of about 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry. The combined Greek force numbered about 35,000 men. That does not constitute "some of those people." He essentially ended city state history and Greek independence.
It's cathartic to admit that Greece was conquered by a bunch of peasants and barbarians, just accept it. Try as you might, Greeks can't rewrite history. And as far as naming goes, Greece should change its name to South Macedonia to more accurately define the geographical territory.
Dianatomia
Regular member
- Messages
- 423
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 43
- Ethnic group
- Greek
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- J2a
You somewhat misrepresent the facts. There was no Greece, as in Greek nation state. So one can’t conquer Greece in that sense. In this line of thought, there were particular Greek alliances with their own agendas for domination.
There certainly was though, a concept of Greece referred to as Hellas. But that concept was used mostly by the Macedonians, rather than the alliance of some Greek states.
With respect to Macedonia and the modern political issue. The dispute, insofar it has anything to do with antiquity is entirety artificial. An invention of modern kitch nationalism. It lives in forums like these. Not in serious Academia.
Picture that when the first Slavic speakers entered the area of Macedonia, the indigenous people there were Greek speaking, Orthodox Christian, self identifying Romans who had their allegiance to the emperor of Constantinople. And that was 1400 years ago.
Whoever speaks of battles like the one at Charonea to make a modern political point has to rely on a good dose of ignorance in order to sell that story.
What facts am I misrepresenting? I'm not misrepresenting any facts at all. I've stated multiple times that "Greece" did not exist at the time of Philip and Alexander. Athens existed, Thebes existed, Sparta existed and various other city states. Macedonia was not part of these city states and when Athens was conquered, the idea of "Greece" was extinguished. It was Macedonia that allowed the conquered city states to be part of its empire. Macedonia created "Greece." Plato was not Greek, Socrates was not Greek, Aristotle was not Greek, Diogenes was not Greek, Pythagoras was not Greek, Archimedes was not Greek, Hippocrates was not Greek, there was no Greek history because it didn't exist. Since there was no Greece, why do Greeks claim Philip and Alexander as Greek? They were Macedonian: they spoke a different language (e.g. when Alexander addressed his troops in Macedonian, the Hellenes couldn't understand him), they had a king, they were polygamous, they were uncultured heathens, they were peasants, they were barbarians looked down upon by the blue-blooded Helenian elites yet, the Macedonians were the conquerors.
Vitruvius
Active member
- Messages
- 465
- Reaction score
- 872
- Points
- 91
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Anyone with even the slightest exposure to the topic of classical antiquity is well aware that not only did Hellas/Greece exist in the ancient world, but it thrived as a demographically explosive and dominant phenomenon; birthing a mosaic of unique Greek city states all around the Mediterranean whose sense of common ethnic identity stretching back to the bronze age. Plato, the Greek philosopher (Since apparently that needs to be specified), defined intergreek conflicts as civil war and was quite explicit about it. Your lowbrow antigreek ahistorical fanfic is tiring and easy to disprove. If you're going to deny the existence of Hellas/Greece in ancient times, you may as well deny the rest of ancient history itself.
Last edited:
No one said Hellas did not exist, "Greece" did not exist. Dianatomia said as much stating, "There was no Greece, as in Greek nation state. There certainly was though, a concept of "Greece" referred to as Hellas" and I agreed with him. Even today, the official country name in the UN is The Hellenic Republic, so there still is no "Greece." As I wrote earlier, it was the Romans that started referring to the territory as "Greece" (Graeci), and it wasn't until Late Antiquity (c. 3rd - 7th centuries) that Hellenes referred to themselves as "Greek." Persians called them "Yaunas," as did the Hebrews (Yevanim) Turks, and Arabs. Hellas became part of the Macedonian Empire after losing the Battle of Chaeronea, one of the most renowned of all battles. The Macedonian victory at Chaeronea would put Hellas into what historian G. Maclean Rogers describes as "a 'deep sleep', both politically and militarily. It would never again regain its supremacy in the Mediterranean." The inability of Hellenes to admit they were conquered by Macedonia is laughable.
Vitruvius
Active member
- Messages
- 465
- Reaction score
- 872
- Points
- 91
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Greece and Hellas refer to the same ethnogeography in two different languages. Saying one exists but the other did not is like saying Germany did not exist while Deutschland did. It's a nonsensical self contradictory statement. Greece existed as a disunified series of quarreling city state/territories before Macedonia's conquest no different than how Italy existed before Rome's conquests or how Germania existed in classical antiquity. It was an ethnogeography that consisted of lands which were dominated by a single homogenous ethnic group despite being politically and legally divided. The Greeks to this day still do not refer to themselves or their country with the latin derived English exonym "Greeks/Greece" and yet they still obviously remain Greeks living within their nation of Greece insofar as the English language intends. This is really not something I should have to specify.
The "Macedonian Empire" was simply a Greek empire. You are living in a fantasy. Reality is the exact opposite of what you wrote. Hellas/Greece and its language, religion and culture became more dominant in the near east and mediterranean than any other power during the reign of Alexander the Great. This era was the absolute peak of Greek military dominance which bore witness to Greek incursions even as far east as pakistan and India while in contrast Rome was just beginning to expand into Southern Italy. The Greek speaking Macedonians conquered and politically unified Greece and weaponized its populace as a homogenous conquering force in the same way that Rome did with Italy. You will find this is a common theme amongst many nations in many cultures.
There is no doubt by classical time Macedonians were Greek speaking and part of Hellenic world, but i rather think they have Thracian-like elements in comparison with other Greeks. Maybe we can classify them as Greco-Thracian tribe of sort.
For instance the name Macedonia is quite similar to prior Thracian Mygdonia and Edonia. I think makednos is a fabrication of Greek linguists and doesn't make sense, makos/megas are the only words used for tall highlander. It looks more like Macedonia might mean Greater Edonia. IDK, we will see when we get aDNA.
For instance the name Macedonia is quite similar to prior Thracian Mygdonia and Edonia. I think makednos is a fabrication of Greek linguists and doesn't make sense, makos/megas are the only words used for tall highlander. It looks more like Macedonia might mean Greater Edonia. IDK, we will see when we get aDNA.
TetaEglantina
Regular member
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
I think it's weird that there hasn't been much research done in Macedonia yet, it's like some people are afraid to uncover the truth
Omino
Regular member
That's pure nonsense, cremation is the reason.
We literally have only 2 IA samples from whole Greece
Dibran
Regular member
- Messages
- 1,116
- Reaction score
- 305
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Albanian/Gheg/Dibran/Okshtun
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-L1029>Y133379
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H11a2b*
@Omino, not really nonsense. I recall in this forum (or perhaps Anthrogenica before it was taken down) it was mentioned that the Royal tombs of Macedonians of Phillip's line (including Phillip) were found. However, the Greek government did not allow the testing/sequencing of these remains. They did however allow the testing of commoners who were dumped in crypts (perhaps these results will be coming at some point in the coming years).
Those tombs were uncovered between the 50s-80s, and such much later, and to this day not one of the royal remains has been tested or published.
"In 1949, excavations were finally resumed by Manolis Andronikos. Andronikos completed the palace excavations in 1970 then turned his attention to the Great Tumulus that he was convinced was a burial mound concealing the tombs of the Macedonian kings. There, in 1977, Andronikos uncovered four buried tombs, two of which had never been disturbed. Andronikos identified these as the tomb of Philip II, father of Alexander the Great (Tomb II) and also of Alexander IV of Macedon, son of Alexander the Great and Roxana (Tomb III).
In 1987, a burial cluster including the tomb of Queen Eurydice I was discovered. Between 1991 and 2009, over 1,000 tombs were excavated along with city districts, farm houses, cemeteries, streets, sanctuaries and parts of the city fortification. A royal burial cluster of the Temenids, an ancient Macedonian royal house of Dorian Greek provenance, was also revealed. Then in March 2014, five more royal tombs thought to possibly belong to Alexander I of Macedon and his family or to the family of Cassander were discovered."
Museum of the Royal Tombs of Aigai (Vergina) - Wikipedia
This same issue occurs in Albania where a young woman who has jurisdiction over certain Komani-Kruja archaeological sites has refused anyone from testing the remains. Whether she's paid off, or suffers from some similar case of identity crisis as other Balkaners do, which is probably why aDNA is far and in between in comparison to the rest of Europe.
TetaEglantina
Regular member
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
Macedonians were involved in many conflicts were cremating all the bodies may have not been possible. Whole of Greece wasn't cremating in the iron age, there is no excuse for lack of aDNA from ancient Greece - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_funeral_and_burial_practices#:~:text=After 1100 BC, Greeks began,their ashes in an urn.
Thank you. We are arguing semantics yet saying the same thing. As I wrote above, Dianatomia said "There was no Greece, as in Greek nation state. There certainly was though, a concept of "Greece" referred to as Hellas" and I agreed with him. Whether we refer to it as Hellas or Greece, it really doesn't matter to me. We are simply trying to be consistent when referring to the area.
In your dreams, Vitruvius. You're the one living a fantasy. The Macedonian Empire had nothing to do with Greece as they were different territories with distinct cultures. King Philip II of Macedonia (NOT Greece, but Macedonia) and Alexander the Great conquered Greece. You yourself just spoke of "Macedonia's conquest" of Greece. There is a winning side and a losing side in wars and Greece lost. They were absorbed into the Macedonian Empire. I know you and other Greeks don't like it, but too bad. Face reality. If Philp had thought he was Greek, he would have called himself Philip of Greece, but he didn't, he was Philip II of Macedonia. That designation alone signifies a conscience understanding in the difference of identity. In fact, one of Philip's biggest desires was to defeat Greece. If I apply your logic to The battle of Marathon, the Athenians would be considered Persian even though they won.
Macedonia wasn't anything like Greece. Greece was populated by city-states like Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Argos, Thebes—the most dominant city-state prior to its destruction by Philip and Alexander. All of these places tended to have thriving middle classes and a well-developed upper-class; they were refined; they governed through councils/democracies mainly (with some exceptions); they had schools (only allowed for boys); their citizens usually made up militia armies of these places.
Things were very different in Macedonia where they really didn't have a thriving middle class, and they didn't have any city-states. They had villages and towns and hamlets. Instead of a thriving middle class, they had a group that tilled the land. I'm not sure if I would call them peasants... you know what, I will call them peasants. You definitely had a nobility that these people owed their allegiance to a King. The idea of having a king to the Greeks was a sign of barbarism. Kings were what the Egyptians had with a pharaoh... kings were what the Persians had with Cyrus the Great. Greek city-states had different governments, but Kings weren't usually a part of it so if you had a king, that was a sure sign that you probably weren't Greek. And if your king was polygamous, that was another sure sign of barbarism. Add to that the fact that Macedonians lived a much more rustic existence than your average Cosmopolitan Greek city-state citizen and one understands they had nothing in common. Even their language was different.
Macedonia was a warrior culture with an amazing King. They held power in their society because they were trained in the application of violence and valued it as a tool to seize power. Greece was more poltroon. You will bring up Sparta and Thebes, but the Peloponnesian War and Leuctra were in the rear view mirror.
Historian Ian Worthington draws this distinction as he compares an Athenian to a Macedonian and compares their cultures and the way they grow up, and the carrots and sticks in their societies and how something like that might actually have an effect on the battlefield when you have to walk up and shove a spear into your adversary. Worthington says "the whole fabric of Macedonian Society was alien to Greeks and so abhorred by them. A Macedonian male was an entirely different animal from his Athenian counterpart, for example, who came of age at 18 was then eligible to attend the assembly which is the body that debates and votes on domestic and foreign policy, served in the Army as and when required, was eligible for jury service when he turned 30 and if he came from a well-to-do family attended symposia to engage in intellectual discussions..." He then says, “Macedonia was utterly different. No one was allowed to wash in warm water except women who had just given birth; no man could recline at a banquet until he had speared and killed one of the ferocious wild bores without using a net to trap it; a soldier had to wear a rope or sack around his waist until he had killed his first man in battle. To achieve these expectations, boys from an early age were taught to fight, ride a horse, and hunt wild boar, foxes, birds, and even lions." He then says that Macedonian Society was rugged and had more in common with the tough love of Viking Society than Classical Greece. According to the ancient writers there are all sorts of other things that the Macedonians have as part of their culture to differentiate them from Greeks. but I'll stop here.
There is no doubt that Macedonians were not Greek. With all due respect, Hawk, I prefer to listen to historians.
Yes, Greeks don't want to admit they lost the defining battle and their identity to Macedonians.
TetaEglantina
Regular member
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
I agree that Macedonians were not genetically the same as Mycenaeans, in terms of the language they probably spoke something like Doric Greek which formed after the Dorian invasion from north
Omino
Regular member
If you actually listened to historians,you wouldn't spread pseudohistorical nonsense my dear
Last edited:
Omino
Regular member
My dear Mycenaeans were not even genetically the same with later classical Greeks from the same area,that doesn't make the later less or more Greek.
Expecting people to stay identical genetically for millennia is delusional.