Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Not Ancient Greeks nor Romans Posted: 17-Jan-2005 at 23:30 |
It's mature enough to know that we're talking about
the nearly SAME population.
|
|
Rava
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 03:53 |
Scythian, the territory of present Poland had been depopulated before Serbs, Croats and other tribes settled here arround VI century AD. It's against your thesis of the continuity of European lineages.
In the social systems which included slavery, male slavs were not allowed to procreate. Therefore I don't think that the results of genetic research are diagnostic and reliable. Can you proof that Turks and Arabs (importers of slavs) have significat percentage of genetic changes in female lineage?
|
|
cavalry4ever
AE Moderator
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 11:06 |
Originally posted by Rava
Scythian, the territory of present Poland had been
depopulated before Serbs, Croats and other tribes settled
here arround VI century AD. It's against your thesis of the
continuity of European lineages.
In the social systems which included slavery, male slavs were not
allowed to procreate. Therefore I don't think that the results of
genetic research are diagnostic and reliable. Can you proof that Turks
and Arabs (importers of slavs) have significat percentage of genetic
changes in female lineage? |
Fascinating. Large scale, forced migration with progeny on the female side only.
Never thought of it.
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 12:25 |
Originally posted by Rava
Scythian, the territory of present Poland had been
depopulated before Serbs, Croats and other tribes settled
here arround VI century AD. It's against your thesis of the
continuity of European lineages. |
Nope, it wasn't depopulated. Where did you get that?
In the social systems which included slavery, male slavs were
not allowed to procreate. Therefore I don't think that the results of
genetic research are diagnostic and reliable. Can you proof that Turks
and Arabs (importers of slavs) have significat percentage of genetic
changes in female lineage? |
Where did you get that too? It's the age-old Anglo-Saxon propaganda that
Slavs got their name from being enslaved.
It's just like saying that Germans got their name from Germs etc.
It's difficult to say how much the female lineages influenced this or
that population, and when it happened, because the mtDNA of Europe and
the Middle East is nearly identical. Just the percentages vary from
place to place.
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 12:28 |
Originally posted by cavalry4ever
Originally posted by Rava
Scythian, the territory of present Poland had been
depopulated before Serbs, Croats and other tribes settled
here arround VI century AD. It's against your thesis of the
continuity of European lineages.
In the social systems which included slavery, male slavs were not
allowed to procreate. Therefore I don't think that the results of
genetic research are diagnostic and reliable. Can you proof that Turks
and Arabs (importers of slavs) have significat percentage of genetic
changes in female lineage? |
Fascinating. Large scale, forced migration with progeny on the female side only.
Never thought of it.
|
It's not fascinating, it's crap.
Real large scale migrations happened 8000 years ago. Everything after that was minor in comparison.
It's because the populations back then were sufficiently small so that
migrations actually made a lasting impact. After that, the migrations
weren't as effective.
The only things that migrated were armies, languages and cultures.
That's how for example, the Irish are mostly genetically indigenous, pre-Celtic,
pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Viking.
Sure, you can find an individual here or there who's "out of place" in
terms of genetics, but that's just an exception that confirms the rule.
|
|
Rava
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 15:49 |
Originally posted by Scythian
Originally posted by Rava
Scythian, the territory of present Poland had been depopulated before Serbs, Croats and other tribes settled here arround VI century AD. It's against your thesis of the continuity of European lineages. |
Nope, it wasn't depopulated. Where did you get that?
In the social systems which included slavery, male slavs were not allowed to procreate. Therefore I don't think that the results of genetic research are diagnostic and reliable. Can you proof that Turks and Arabs (importers of slavs) have significat percentage of genetic changes in female lineage? |
Where did you get that too? It's the age-old Anglo-Saxon propaganda that Slavs got their name from being enslaved.
It's just like saying that Germans got their name from Germs etc.
It's difficult to say how much the female lineages influenced this or that population, and when it happened, because the mtDNA of Europe and the Middle East is nearly identical. Just the percentages vary from place to place.
|
Did I wrote the Slavs? . And I must disappoint you. Archeological digs show depopulation of present day Poland in the 6th Century AD, and this evidence is supported by the sources as well. See Historia Francorum and De Bello Gothico II: 15.
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2005 at 20:08 |
I don't buy that. Population in such areas was scarce, information unavailable,
but 'depopulated' is a hard word.
|
|
Christscrusader
Baron
Joined: 13-Nov-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 16:52 |
Is the idea of blond hair and blue eyed Ancient Greeks of antiquity come just from literature, or was there Any archiological proof(if there can be) to back that up at all? I just don't see blond haired blue eyed people running around the warm land of Greece, reminds me more of the Swedish or Norwegian.
|
Heaven helps those, who help themselves.
-Jc
|
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 22:05 |
When talking about Hellas all researchers/scholars/historians have been proven
to support exactly what the money tells them to support, there are more than a
few examples.
The very fact that Homer's Illiad is an epic poem, is more
than enough to support any objections to this stupid German/Nordic hoax that are
based on the poem alone.
We know as a fact that the color blue is mentioned
in many Hellinic texts as "kuanos" but Homer mentions the sea as "wine dark",
what the hell is a "wine dark sea"? Probably a metaphor for "dangerous"
something like we use "black" to present "evil".
Or what about "grey-eyed
Athena" and "rosy-fingered dawn"?
Simple, it is a poem nothing more nothing
less.(even though it does describe a real history event)
Anyway, Homer
describes Hera grabbing Achilles from his blond hair, when we take a look at
Achilles' life we find that while living in the court of Lycomedes, he was given
the name "Pyrrha" = red from "pyr" = fire.
But when we look at the Mycenean
artifacts, they all portray him as "dark", not one artifact presents him as
"blond" or "red-head".
So we see that archaeological reality does prove the
Illiad to be just a poem and that this "german/nordic origin" theory belongs in a
dumpster.
Look up :
New Rules for Historical Instruction in Germany (in Discussion and
Correspondence), American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 36, No. 1. (Jan.
-Mar., 1934), pp. 139-141.
Since my attachments have some prob. I'll try to locate the site again.
Edited by Hellinas
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 00:22 |
I'll make an example about blondism.
I have brown hair, blue eyes and light skin.
Some people call me 'blond'... that's just a local perception
of what blond is. You just have to be lighter pigmented than the average.
I can imagine that the ancient Greeks who also lived not 200km from
where I live also had a similar idea of what blond is.
Not blond in the Scandinavian sense of the word, that's for sure.
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 02:40 |
Originally posted by Scythian
I have brown hair, blue eyes and light skin. Some people call me 'blond'... that's just a local perception of what blond is. You just have to be lighter pigmented than the average.
|
Excellent point!
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
cattus
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1803
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 11:33 |
many today refuse to believe that Italians and Greeks could have any relation their ancient ancestors.
Exaggerated migration theories,jealousy?
|
|
cavalry4ever
AE Moderator
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 14:38 |
Originally posted by Scythian
It's not fascinating, it's crap.
Real large scale migrations happened 8000 years ago. Everything after that was minor in comparison.
It's because the populations back then were sufficiently small so that
migrations actually made a lasting impact. After that, the migrations
weren't as effective.
The only things that migrated were armies, languages and cultures.
That's how for example, the Irish are mostly genetically indigenous, pre-Celtic,
pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Viking.
Sure, you can find an individual here or there who's "out of place" in
terms of genetics, but that's just an exception that confirms the rule.
|
I think, we are mixing two things here. We can probably agree by now
that all Europenas are virtually undistinguishable from the genetic
standpoint. However, large scale migration did happen at the beginning
of first millenium CE. It may have been done within the same gene pool,
but cultures have changed. Population in Europe was not that large.
Estimates are that in year 1 CE worlwide population was only 150
million people. In Europe, most of it was in the south on the shores of
Meditterranean. Do Normans and Francs are related? Yes
But Normandy is not populated by the same people as Paris.
|
|
cavalry4ever
AE Moderator
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 14:53 |
Originally posted by Catt
many today refuse to believe that Italians and Greeks could have any relation their ancient ancestors.
Exaggerated migration theories,jealousy? |
About jealousy. Do I appreciate Greek monuments? Answer is yes. A lot.
Would I like to live in Greece? Answer is no.
Would I like to have Elgin marbles returned where they belong? Yes.
Do Greeks have cultural continuity from antiquity? Anser is no, and this is not related to genetic makeup.
We do not want to deprive anyone of their national pride or insult their identity.
This is just a discussion about origin of various ethnic groups in Europe.
From all sources it is apparent that antique Greeks had brown hair (all
shades from dark brown to blond). They looked probably like people from
more northern states in Europe. Most of Germans are not blond either.
And such Greeks exist today. In Greece and Georgia (former Greek
colony).
However, when one visists Greece or Italy, one sees a large number of people with charcoal black hair. This is not brown.
What is an explanation of this?
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 15:48 |
Jealousy, and the unability to realize that transportation back then
was too ineffective to support large scale migrations.
Even today, it would be a next to impossible task to just move around a
large population ( which would go willingly, and not like Stalin moved
them ).
By large, I mean large enough to cause a lasting impact on the structure
of a population. Today, it would take moving of millions of people, and
exterminating millions of other peoples to replace a population.
Back then, walking on foot, by cart, and some horses, armed with spears...
simply no chance of successful removal of the old population, and placing the new.
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 16:10 |
Originally posted by cavalry4ever
From all sources it is apparent that antique Greeks had brown hair (all
shades from dark brown to blond). They looked probably like people from
more northern states in Europe. Most of Germans are not blond either.
And such Greeks exist today. In Greece and Georgia (former Greek
colony).
However, when one visists Greece or Italy, one sees a large number of people with charcoal black hair. This is not brown.
What is an explanation of this?
|
The explanation is that you, and people like you want something,
and are prepared only to listen to the clues/facts/details that
you like, and twist them around so to fit your preference/agenda.
|
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 16:58 |
Originally posted by Scythian
Real large scale migrations happened 8000 years ago. Everything after that was minor in comparison.
It's because the populations back then were sufficiently small so that
migrations actually made a lasting impact. After that, the migrations
weren't as effective.
The only things that migrated were armies, languages and cultures.
Sure, you can find an individual here or there who's "out of place" in
terms of genetics, but that's just an exception that confirms the rule.
|
OK, lost you once again, what about the Slavs, weren't they a "large
scale" migration? I'm sure that in order to give that amount of hell to
the well organized Byzantines they must have been much more than a
simple army and if they were just a simple army how large should this
army have been in order to later populate the area? Since everysource
I've seen agrees that the Slavs only "arrived" some time around the 7th
cent. to their current location.
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 16:59 |
Some ancient Greeks (and others) apparently bleached their hair with
pigeon dung, ugh, the things people did back then for a date.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
Scythian
Knight
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2005 at 07:21 |
Originally posted by Hellinas
OK, lost you once again, what about the Slavs, weren't they a "large
scale" migration? I'm sure that in order to give that amount of hell to
the well organized Byzantines they must have been much more than a
simple army and if they were just a simple army how large should this
army have been in order to later populate the area? Since everysource
I've seen agrees that the Slavs only "arrived" some time around the 7th
cent. to their current location.
|
It's simple. The Slavs brought their military influence in the Balkans, together with culture and language.
Genetically speaking, 80% of Slavic-speaking Balkans is local Balkanoid.
The other 20% which are genetically Eastern European are mostly located north of the Danube.
Besides, you're relying on 19th century histrorians who have had
a lot of agendas regarding the Balkans. Trying to prove that
all the population in the Balkans are just some nomad savages who don't
rightfully belong there was one of the points in their agenda.
Look at the spread of populations.
18.000 years ago:
12.000 Years ago:
8000 Years ago:
today:
|
|
Hellinas
Knight
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2005 at 09:46 |
Scythian
>> Besides, you're relying on 19th century histrorians who have had
a lot of agendas regarding the Balkans. Trying to prove that
all the
population in the Balkans are just some nomad savages who don't
rightfully belong there was one of the points in their agenda.<<
Actually
my source of the later "migration" was from the Byzatine era to be
specific Constantine Porphyrgenitus and not later sources, but from
what I understand you must be refering to the "proto-slavs" and not to
the later "migration" I thought.
I
noticed that the "maps" you present support the "out of Africa" and the
Indo-European theories. The first map is from 18000yrs ago and the 3rd
8000yrs ago. How large were these "migrations" and how much did they
affect the local populations and do you know of any real proof of the
IE origin or existance beside linguistic similarities?
I
recently read about I. M. Diakonov's theory were he suggests the origin
of the IE to have been the Balkans, also found two more theories, one
that suggests the Russian steppes and the other the Armenian plateau
but the first seemed more convincing, probably becaused I wanted it to.
Any info on these?
|
|