|
Post by greekslav on Dec 31, 2007 0:59:04 GMT -5
Genetics and linguistic - cultural identity is not one and the same thing. That's self-evident. Absolutely. When Greek genetics can not possibly have continuity all the way back to our ancient forefathers, the language and culture can. What ever the make up of Greek genetics, it will never take away the fact that we are Greek. So now we see that Greek genetics can be varied. Do you agree? So how can we have such varied genes. Herodotus explains it all too well. Herodotus had shown that barbaroi of the day were capable of becoming “Greek”, that the division between Greeks and barbaroi was crossable. He had even stated that the Persians could have become “Greek” if they would have chosen the democratic way. Herodotus further shows that this transition is a matter of evolution, that many of the people that were Greek in his day were once barbaroi. Greeks of today have an intimate relationship with ancient Greece. So there should be no reason to deny our varied genetics due to the peoples and neighbors of Hellas in ancient times. It does not make you any less Greek.
|
|
|
Post by greek1234 on Dec 31, 2007 1:27:43 GMT -5
Modern Greeks are the direct descendants of the ancient Greeks. Its obvious our Bulgarian neighbors the Fyromanians have spread lies to distort our history.
|
|
|
Post by grksdied4you on Dec 31, 2007 9:49:53 GMT -5
"Greeks of today have an intimate relationship with ancient Greece. So there should be no reason to deny our varied genetics due to the peoples and neighbors of Hellas in ancient times. It does not make you any less Greek."
If that is the case than why do you think there are so many people in these boards trying to sever our connection to our ancient heritage? Greece's history is recorded for thousands of years. Language, culture, military and migration have all been recorded. History does not support the claims of these genetic studies.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Dec 31, 2007 10:31:49 GMT -5
Herodotus first defined “Hellenic” as a common bond in blood, religion, a shared character, and common language.
The requirements for being “Hellenic” evolved over the years. There came a point in our history that to be “Greek”, one must participate in humanism. Isocrates puts it perfectly by saying that “Greeks are they who share in our education”, and “A Greek is such not by birth but by intellect.”
With this, racial homogeneity among the Greeks began to degrade because the requirement to participate in the intellectual world of Greeks was knowledge and the Greek language, unrelated to any particular country (i.e. Syrian Greeks of biblical times).
So in this way, history will support these claims made by these genetic studies.
|
|
|
Post by grksdied4you on Dec 31, 2007 13:11:57 GMT -5
TELL ME ONE CULTURE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH THAT DOES NOT TAKE THIS SHAPE AND PATTERN THROUGHOUT HISTORY? The Greeks are on top and everyone just wants to knock them down including you.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Dec 31, 2007 13:44:26 GMT -5
The ancient Greeks were indeed the founders of democracy, humanism, and intellectuality. The ancient Greeks had mastered the art of intellectuality, the thought process relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning rather than the use of emotions. At a point in our great history, they started to understand that being "Greek" takes much more than "blood", and that "intellect" has a major rule. This is how our genetics became varied.
These genetic studies could very well support the intellect and language requirements of being Greek in those days. This attitude about being Greek was not bound by borders, so many peoples were "Greek" and/or became "Greek".
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 31, 2007 14:59:34 GMT -5
So what I would like to know if Greeks do have Sub-Saharan genes in them then how is it that the Greeks of today look just like their cousins the Sicilians(predominantly Greek)? The Sicilians and the Southern Italians have a very old saying "Una Fatsa Una Ratsa!" This means "One face one Race!" If Greeks are so mixed with African, Slavic, Turkish, Albanian, etc then how is it that we still look the same as those Greeks who were isolated from the Slavs, Albs, Turks and so on?
Now one huge problem with the study is that it suggest that the Gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa occurred around the Pharoanic times of Egypt. How can this be? After all the Greeks were already in the Greek peninsula at least 4000+ years ago during the Pharoanic times? So how would it be possible that Sub-Saharan Africans entered Egypt passed through Canaan(now Palestine) and passed through Anatolia and the North Balkans to settle in Greece and within a few hundred years became completely indistinguishable from their bretheren in Ethiopia and the Sudan?
It makes absolutely no sense historically, archaeologically and genetically.
Let's say for a moment that the Greeks imported Sub-Saharan Africans as Slaves to Greece, how many would there have to be in order to have such an influence on the genetic make-up of the Greeks? Slaves for the most part in Ancient Greece were OTHER Greeks. These were captured in battle or sold by Greeks to various other Greeks. There were some non-Greek admixture of slaves but it would not even total 15% of the slave population. Now break this down to the Sub-Saharan Africans who the Greeks had little to no contact with, their total percentage would be less than 1%.
So with this in mind any genetic study done that shows a high admixture of Sub-Saharan African Genes in modern Greeks would be greatly flawed. Just as the Villena study was dismissed by more credible geneticist for lacking to coincide the results with KNOWN archaeological and historical facts.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Dec 31, 2007 15:06:33 GMT -5
Helleitikotita is a living experience and evolves. It had emcompassed many peoples of numerous cultures, and that in itself may have had a play in our genetics today. It does not make one less Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Dec 31, 2007 15:16:51 GMT -5
Well it seems I have uncovered why a Greek to Sub-Saharan connection occurred in the Tunisian study!
From the Tunisian Study.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Now the allele that was studied by Arnaiz-Villena.
HLA DRB1 locus
Pay attention to the BOLD words.
So they studied that same allele as Arnaiz-Villena and came to the same results. No wonder. But I am curious to read the findings on the other alleles studied and what they showed about the Greeks.
So I believe with just the HLA DRB1 allele that the connection between the Greeks and Sub-Saharan Africans can be viewed as flawed and in need of further studies.
Does anyone have the entire Tunisian study something other than a short abstract?
|
|
|
Post by grksdied4you on Dec 31, 2007 18:42:59 GMT -5
I will look for it Niklianos! Villena is a criminal, a liar and a fraud.
|
|
|
Post by greekslav on Dec 31, 2007 20:05:16 GMT -5
You always seem to be puzzled? ? Let me make myself perfectly clear. I do not support the nationalistic Macedonians from ROM declaring that this certain genetic research proves that Greeks are from the sub-saharan. They are only twisting the words around to say what they want. The only matter of these scientific genetic research is that Greeks may have a connection to the peoples of Ethiopia/Egypt, for whatever reason (harse conditions in that region/trade/etc). The official reports never indicated that Greeks were originally from the sub-saharan. They only spoke about migrations into the Mediterranean. That was only a nationalistic move by those fanatics in ROM. You know it and I know you know it. So why give it so much life? It is clouding your judgement and emotions puts a tamper on your intellect. Wise up, pay no mind to the jabber from the nationalists of ROM and focus. At that point, you will stop being puzzled. The research indicates that Greeks may have a connection to the peoples of Ethiopia/Egypt, but they do not say that they are from there. OKAY?
|
|
|
Post by grksdied4you on Dec 31, 2007 23:13:57 GMT -5
"They are only twisting the words around to say what they want."
YES YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jan 1, 2008 22:22:02 GMT -5
Hey Greeks if you are Orthodox Christians you know that all humans come form the same ancestors: Adam and Eve. What makes you so obscessed about the genetic pool of nations. It will lead you to the same ancestors. If every living humans ancestors firts inhabitated Africa and then migrated to all other continents. What are you looking for? Later on the developed different tribes, groups with different languages. But as they got more populous and srated migrating they got into contanct with other tribes and nations and always interbred, got mixed all the time. What are you looking for??? What are you
|
|
|
Post by grksdied4you on Jan 1, 2008 22:35:15 GMT -5
"all humans come form the same ancestors: Adam and Eve."
It is not the Greeks who are obsessed with the genetic pool of nations. It is Greece's neighbors who are obsessed with the gene pool as they try to lay claim to our ancestry and heritage. You need more than genetics baby. I see why Greece called everyone who was not Greek a barbarian in ancient times. They really were surrounded by barbarians.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 1, 2008 22:58:39 GMT -5
I don't believe in Adam & Eve..... I believe in the evolution of the races... certain tribes were more advanced than others..
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jan 2, 2008 7:13:11 GMT -5
Kanaris... I agree... And I would like to admit the african genes in us... we inherit those genes from the waist down Grkslav, im sick of seeing your worthless opinion...i am also half slav, but you are just ridiculous. I dont know what your trying to prove in here...and get rid of that gay fyrom flag...can someone get rid of that pls ?
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jan 3, 2008 1:06:21 GMT -5
I don't believe in Adam & Eve..... I believe in the evolution of the races... certain tribes were more advanced than others.. Well, If there was evolution (which I am not fond of that much) it would still require the presence of one successful "mutant" - a protoype human sapiens (ancestor) that would then set the beginning of the new "superior" species. We the backward crowd call them Adam an Eve. You call them something else. That doesn't change anything...
|
|
|
Post by Emperor AAdmin on Jan 3, 2008 2:00:16 GMT -5
Lets assume for a moment that the studies are correct this could mean that perhaps it is related to several things; A) - Greeks ruled Egypt and a strong presence there and even today Coptics have many Greek words in the language. - Ethiopia is even today a country with a strong orthodox presence and hence some genes might have spread there ultimately with missionaries. Or lets go even further. B) Mediterraneans are racially very likely to have originated 20,000 from Ethiopids (fully seperate and unrelated race from Bantoids/Negroids) who have left towards Arabia to become later Mediterraneans (certainly Arabia and Egypt would be first areas for these people to move towards). Hyplotype J is common in Ethiopia and also across Middle East and North Africa as a testament to this kinship. C) Third option is that Arabs (of whom many are partially of Greek origin especially Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt which were all Hellenistic regions before) have intermixed with some populations in Ethiopia and introduced the haplogroup J. PS: personally I think the study is doctored as it is not logical that Greeks (who colonized most of Mediterranean) are unique is certain genetic markers as opposed to rest of the Mediterranean especially so when there have not been any major movement of people into Greece over past millennium (in terms of major intermixing of Greeks with non-Greeks as Greeks remained fortified in their cities). If anything anthropologists (Coon for example) are clear that todays Greeks are racially much the same as ancient ones. Genetics also strongly suggest the same conclusion such as the link bellow or fact that haplotype J is strongly prevalent among Greeks as it has been across eastern Mediterranean. link----------- Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit---------- Greek mtDNA In numerous recent studies, the mitochondrial DNA of Greeks was examined and was found to be predominantly Caucasoid with only infrequent presence of "erratic" sequences from non-Caucasoid sources. Mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") is inherited from one's mother and is thus a good way to establish the maternal ancestry of a population. The most comprehensive European-wide study of mtDNA is [1] in which 125 Greeks were sampled among thousands of Europeans. The Greeks and the Albanians appear in the "Mediterranean-East" category of the study. Greeks tested belonged overwhelmingly to the Caucasoid-specific haplogroups ("Seven Daughters of Eve" popularized by Bryan Sykes' book). The "erratic" sequences include a Sub-Saharan African (L1a) sequence, which was derived from the Albanian part of the sample [2]. The other two sequences non-attributed to a European founder are members of haplogroups prevalent in Asia, M and D. Thus, the total percentage of erratics in the Greek sample was 1.6%. The Greeks, like most Europeans are fairly pure in terms of their maternal ancestry. It is sometimes argued that the Greeks absorbed large numbers of Negro slaves or immigrants. There is no evidence of such an event in Greek mtDNA. If it ever took place, it was so limited in scope that not a single sequence in a total of 125 could be found. The number of non-European sequences in the rest of Europe is also small, while in the Near East it is about 5%, only slightly larger. One can easily verify that Sub-Saharan African admixture (L sequences) has been detected in Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway and Iceland - 0.6%), Southeastern Europe (Bulgaria/Romania - 0.5%), Central Mediterranean (Italy and Sardinia - 1.7%; mostly in Sardinia), the Mediterranean West (Spain and Portugal - 3.7%), North Central Europe (Poles, Czechs, Germans, Danes - 0.9%), North Western Europe (Britain, Ireland and France - 0.4%). In another recent study [3] on Norwegians, an L2 Sub-Saharan African sequence was found in the sample of 74 Norwegians (1.4% Sub-Saharan admixture). Finally [4] showed 0.5% to 1.2% introgression of Sub-Saharan African genes into the European American gene pool. The main conclusion to be drawn from these studies, is that Caucasoids of European descent have negligible traces of non-Caucasoid maternal admixture. Sub-Saharan African traces of such ancestry are found at levels of about 1% in many populations. But not in Greeks(a). source: linklink (link where above data is found) since that is old dienekes site--------- dienekes had some amazing links that I can only find in my old forum topics like - Modern Greek paternal lineages.
- Greek mtDNA
- Greek autosomal DNA
link----------- Finally Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit__________________ __________________ Some interesting topics about genetics (focus: balkans & greeks) dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Balkansdienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Greeksdienekes old site (I hope he recreates al that stuff) link
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 3, 2008 2:00:43 GMT -5
I also don't believe on the single cell mutation theory..but in a vast array of cells that developed under ideal conditions at the same time... in different parts of the world.... hence the different types of races and looks...
|
|
|
Post by yahadj on Jan 3, 2008 2:21:12 GMT -5
Well you are free to believe anything you want. Evolution is kind of religion, too. A lot of beliefs involved!!!
|
|