Greek relationship to r1b y-dna and indo-European language?

[McCauley]

For the spanish one also has to take into consideration that by the time the IE groups reached there they were considerably reduced by picking up admixture along the way (ANE also points to that). In the much more strongly populated south of europe they would also be unable to make such a big impact as in the north.

You know there's something I always thought about when it comes to Ireland and R1b. Ireland is like, what, 70%? I think back in the unforgiving prehistoric times, it wouldnt be uncommon for conquerors to just slaughter the whole male population. But the geography of a place like Ireland makes something like that much easier. It's an island and so there's nowhere to run, and Ireland has a really poor landscape for holdout groups and survivors. No mountains or rough terrain, just rolling green hills, woodland copses, and open meadows. Geography like that makes it so much easier for an entire population to just be massacred wholesale. Plus the fact that it was a backwater in assfuck no where, population probably was only in the tens of thousands.

In my imagination always envisioned the Celtic conquest of Ireland as a big slaughter, seems genetics is backing this up now.

And also with I beria, I think it was only heavily populated in the Phoenician southeastern part, and and the rest of it was still a pretty backwater and barbarous place, so may explain the higher R1b there compared to southeast Europe and it's metropolises.

Anyway, sorry for off-topic

[Bloodnigger]

You know there's something I always thought about when it comes to Ireland and R1b. Ireland is like, what, 70%? I think back in the unforgiving prehistoric times, it wouldnt be uncommon for conquerors to just slaughter the whole male population. But the geography of a place like Ireland makes something like that much easier. It's an island and so there's nowhere to run, and Ireland has a really poor landscape for holdout groups and survivors. No mountains or rough terrain, just rolling green hills, woodland copses, and open meadows. Geography like that makes it so much easier for an entire population to just be massacred wholesale. Plus the fact that it was a backwater in assfuck no where, population probably was only in the tens of thousands.

In my imagination always envisioned the Celtic conquest of Ireland as a big slaughter, seems genetics is backing this up now.

And also with I beria, I think it was only heavily populated in the Phoenician southeastern part, and and the rest of it was still a pretty backwater and barbarous place, so may explain the higher R1b there compared to southeast Europe and it's metropolises.

Anyway, sorry for off-topic

Np. Islands are always genetically peculiar in some way. Sardinia and Crete are other examples. A conquering population will have an easy time there or the exact opposite will occur. Ireland's geography is ideal for the former, as you pointed out.

This was before phoenicians though. I don't know about spain in particular but the south east during the late neolitic/early bronze was very populous and then exploded into even greater heights later on-both before and after the entrance of the IE speakers we had several "advanced" civilizations there. Pure arithmetic simply did not aid "genetic" conquest in favor of IE groups in that area.

[Dianatomia]

R1b dominated in lands which were not populated. They absorbed the very few hunter gatherers which were there before them.

On the other hand, places which were densely populated, R1b clades make up a minority today. They didn't exterminate anyone.
It is similar to the medieval Slavs which migrated to the Balkans. They simply settled among other populations. Their language endured, but culturally and genetically they were assimilated mostly.

[McCauley]

Np. Islands are always genetically peculiar in some way. Sardinia and Crete are other examples. A conquering population will have an easy time there or the exact opposite will occur. Ireland's geography is ideal for the former, as you pointed out.

This was before phoenicians though. I don't know about spain in particular but the south east during the late neolitic/early bronze was very populous and then exploded into even greater heights later on-both before and after the entrance of the IE speakers we had several "advanced" civilizations there. Pure arithmetic simply did not aid "genetic" conquest in favor of IE groups in that area.

I had read somewhere that Phoenicians founded a city in Iberia as early as 1100 BC, but now I looked it up again and it seems that date is bullshit. I could swear I read that somewhere though. But if the Bronze Age transition in Iberia was going on around, 1800 to 1200, i thought it could be possible there were Semitic colonists arriving almost at the same time as the Indo-European languages. I guess not though, because the date i was thinking of was wrong apparently.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I had read somewhere that Phoenicians founded a city in Iberia as early as 1100 BC, but now I looked it up again and it seems that date is bullshit. I could swear I read that somewhere though. But if the Bronze Age transition in Iberia was going on around, 1800 to 1200, i thought it could be possible there were Semitic colonists arriving almost at the same time as the Indo-European languages. I guess not though, because the date i was thinking of was wrong apparently.

The dates appear legendary, and no Phoenician object earlier than the 8th century BC has yet been found in the west. At Carthage some Greek objects have been found, datable to about 750 or slightly later,

I wouldn't assume it's false due tolack of artifacts found, if we did that then basically everything is false.

[Dianatomia]

Since some people equated Mycenean Greeks with proto-Hellenes, it should be noted that the Myceneans which colonized Cyprus around 1500 BC left very modest rates of R1b and far higher rates of balkanic clades of EV-13 on the island. That makes sense, since the region where the proto-Hellenic identity formed (Epirus, Thessaly) has the highest rates of EV-13.

Cyprus though has far higher rates of R1b (9%) than R1a (3%). This suggest that the proto-hellenes probably carried R1b and not R1a.
As Anthropology suggests, Mycenean Greeks were already a mixed lot.

Ofcourse Cypriots do not equal Mycenean Greeks, but it is obvious they do carry a decent amount of clades from the Balkans. And we know when these clades arrived on the island. As such, EV-13 is more than double than R1b in Cyprus. It is therefore hard to believe that Myceneans where predominantly R1b.

The proto-Hellenes lost a lot of R1b in Epirus as well as on their way to Epirus. They managed to Hellenize Neolithic farmers at least as early as 2000 BC. Then these Mycenean Greeks, carrying a lot of Neolithic genes conquered the Agaean Islands, Crete, some part of Asian Minor and also migrated to Cyprus. Then the Dorians came along. They must have carried quite some R1a. But they never settled in Cyprus.

[Bloodnigger]

Since some people equated Mycenean Greeks with proto-Hellenes, it should be noted that the Myceneans which colonized Cyprus around 1500 BC left very modest rates of R1b and far higher rates of balkanic clades of EV-13 on the island. That makes sense, since the region where the proto-Hellenic identity formed (Epirus, Thessaly) has the highest rates of EV-13.

Cyprus though has far higher rates of R1b (9%) than R1a (3%). This suggest that the proto-hellenes probably carried R1b and not R1a.
As Anthropology suggests, Mycenean Greeks were already a mixed lot.

Ofcourse Cypriots do not equal Mycenean Greeks, but it is obvious they do carry a decent amount of clades from the Balkans. And we know when these clades arrived on the island. As such, EV-13 is more than double than R1b in Cyprus. It is therefore hard to believe that Myceneans where predominantly R1b.

The proto-Hellenes lost a lot of R1b in Epirus as well as on their way to Epirus. They managed to Hellenize Neolithic farmers at least as early as 2000 BC. Then these Mycenean Greeks, carrying a lot of Neolithic genes conquered the Agaean Islands, Crete, some part of Asian Minor and also migrated to Cyprus. Then the Dorians came along. They must have carried quite some R1a. But they never settled in Cyprus.

There is little R1a in places where dorics settled but a lot of r1b. In the north there is a lot of r1a. It goes like this

north greece: 10 or sub 10% r1b, 20-22% r1a, no doric settlement but perhaps doric region of origin in epirus.

south greece: 25% r1b, sub 10% r1a. Doric settlement, especially in the peloponnesus (prime doric ground) but mycenean civilization also flourished there. Also proposed doric region of origin in the mountains near southwestern greece.

Now there are two possible places for doric origin. Mountains of Epirus or south western greece around the ambracian gulf. Both have been proposed. What is curious is that thessaly was not doric even though it was prime ground for settlement-richest farmland in all of greece by miles. But, like in central peloponnesus, it was inhabited by very warlike and quite advanced in warfare people. (strong EV-13 there too) So this implies that they crossed into the peloponnese by south as the Thessalians blew them off.

Now, if the dorics were primarily r1a, then we should expect to find a good amount of that in albania as well which is adjacent to Epirus and all the proposed doric areas as well. Yet Albania has more than twice the r1b than it does r1a. This is the exact reverse with northern greece but completely in line with southern greece. The amount of J and E clades matches very well also. Given that the dorics were only IE admixed in a minority percentage, they would also have carried E and J into the south.

There is always the chance that the dorics carried both clades and possibly the myceneans too but r1a was certainly far less than r1b. R1b seems to fit like a glove to the yamnaya autosomal dna throughout most of europe and also in greece. But unless we have some samples from both the helladic and proto-mycenean eras we will never know for sure.

[Petros Houhoulis]

That's my point. History is useful to get to know the subject in question.
Why is knowledge useful? - To explain the present and make predictions about the future. What else?

Since natural selection powers evolution, we can say that the northerners evolved from hunter-gather/animals into civilization founders, with the help of Greek culture that served as a catalyst.
But how can you explain, armed with the knowledge of ancient history, Greek's genetic degradation? How can you explain your IQ among the lowest among Europeans?

The differences in IQ between Greece and other Europeans are at 5 points at best, which is insignificant. Furthermore, those IQ tests have not been applied upon large portions of the population, which means that they are not accurate, and you do not have any IQ tests for Ancient Greeks in order to prove that the Greek IQ has indeed degraded over the ages. Not to mention that the highest IQ in the world in measured in the Far East, which - according to your bullcrap theory - creates and additional problem: Now you have to explain why the Chinese did not dominate the world instead of the Europeans - unless if you believe that the entire European population has degraded its' IQ over the centuries, in which case, I advise you to go and visit a doctor.

History does explain everything, but you are way too stupid to understand history. Unless if you start analysing the impact of geography, climate, demographics and other factors, your "IQ analysis" shall be worthless, and besides, a society does not need people with above average IQ in order to advance. It only needs a few people with high IQ at the helm, and all societies have their fair share of intelligent people.

Speaking of which:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelos_Katsioulis

Evangelos Katsioulis (born 19 January 1976; Ioannina, Greece^[1]) is a Greek^[2] medical doctor and Psychiatrist.^[3] Currently, he lives and works in Thessaloniki, Greece.^[4]
Katsioulis is known for his high intelligence test scores.^[5][6] There are several reports that he has achieved the highest scores ever recorded on IQ tests designed to measure exceptional intelligence.^[7] Katsioulis has a reported IQ 205 on the Stanford-Binet scale with sd 16, which is equivalent to an IQ 198.4 on the Wechsler scale with sd 15, which is also equivalent to an IQ 258 on the Cattell scale with sd 24.^[8][9] The statistical interpretation of these numbers is that assuming a normal, Gaussian, distribution of IQ scores in the general population, Katsioulis' performance is expected by only 1 person out of 38,000,000,000 of the unselected population.^[10][11]
He is the Founder of the World Intelligence Network (WIN), an international organization of high IQ societies^[12] and of the organization AAAA.GR, a pioneer voluntary team for the detection and support of the gifted individuals in Greece.^[13][14]

Yeah, the problem is that your "education" is good only for 2 digit IQ neolithic farmers.

We have an excellent theoretical and humanitarian education. What we are lacking is technical education, and above all respect for technicians. All Greeks want their children to be doctors and lawyers and white collar workers, not blue collar workers like auto mechanics and plumbers. This is our demise...

I won't comment upon the Albanian education, because I am witnessing its' outcome on a daily basis in this forum...

The rules of the game may be well defined, but as they say: "the ball is round", that is, the result is unpredictable. Well, the experts, those that know the history of teams as well as individual players, still can make better predictions than those that don't.

The problem with you is that you have seen many games, but you haven't figured out the rules...

Not so with the history of ancients. Those that "know it" and used it to make predictions are the real losers, like those that loaned Greeks hundred of billions believing that that was a safe investment given the "potential" of Greeks.

The loans were not given to Greece because anybody believed that the Greeks were "gifted", certainly not above any other European. You are just too fucking Albanian to realize that modern finance was not based upon any assumption that the average Greek was smarter than the average European. You are simply too fucking stupid to understand why Greece entered the EEC, and what happened since Greece entered the EEC...

[Dianatomia]

There is little R1a in places where dorics settled but a lot of r1b. In the north there is a lot of r1a. It goes like this

north greece: 10 or sub 10% r1b, 20-22% r1a, no doric settlement but perhaps doric region of origin in epirus.

south greece: 25% r1b, sub 10% r1a. Doric settlement, especially in the peloponnesus (prime doric ground) but mycenean civilization also flourished there. Also proposed doric region of origin in the mountains near southwestern greece.

Now there are two possible places for doric origin. Mountains of Epirus or south western greece around the ambracian gulf. Both have been proposed. What is curious is that thessaly was not doric even though it was prime ground for settlement-richest farmland in all of greece by miles. But, like in central peloponnesus, it was inhabited by very warlike and quite advanced in warfare people. (strong EV-13 there too) So this implies that they crossed into the peloponnese by south as the Thessalians blew them off.

Now, if the dorics were primarily r1a, then we should expect to find a good amount of that in albania as well which is adjacent to Epirus and all the proposed doric areas as well. Yet Albania has more than twice the r1b than it does r1a. This is the exact reverse with northern greece but completely in line with southern greece. The amount of J and E clades matches very well also. Given that the dorics were only IE admixed in a minority percentage, they would also have carried E and J into the south.

There is always the chance that the dorics carried both clades and possibly the myceneans too but r1a was certainly far less than r1b. R1b seems to fit like a glove to the yamnaya autosomal dna throughout most of europe and also in greece. But unless we have some samples from both the helladic and proto-mycenean eras we will never know for sure.

Though it is harder to assume the Dorian genetic make-up, the Cyprus model does at least give us relative strong evidence that the Myceneans carried some R1b and much less or no R1a. Therefore it can be assumed that the IE element in proto-Hellenic speakers was probably R1b, rather than R1a.

Also, the point I was trying to make is that given the evidence, Mycenean Greeks does not equal proto-Hellenes, and proto-Hellenes does not equal proto-IE. It is only the latter which was predominantly R1b. We can not speak about Greek people without assuming that they carried a lot of Neolithic ancestors. Myceneans and Dorians both carried Neolithic clades (EV-13).

As for R1a, it must have come down in small quantities in different waves.

[GMan]

Peer Reviewed hypothesis by the swarthy Keltic Prisoner Of Ice:

1. R1a is not an IE marker.
2. Slavs are an Iranic/Indo-Iranian offspring.
3. Slavs and Indo-Iranians are not IE.

Are you serious?! However, your #2 theory is supported by some Iranic wannabe scholars in Slavic countries. But #1 and #3 is your very own invention.

Slavic and Iranic are only related in Proto-IE era and the early phases of their ethnogenesis. However, there are some Iranic influences in some Slavic tribes but that does not make them Indo-Iranian off-shoot.

You're similar to those Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians who think they're descendants of Cyrus/Darius/Xerxes's Army! Or they're obsessed to Sarmatians.

Can you explain how Persians turned into Slav?