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

[Dianatomia]

^lol, nice conspiracy theory (mean altin)

Proto-greeks (the IE speakers) certainly belonged to an R1 clade but whether it was R1a or R1b or both, only further studies will show. Pre-Greeks (the original dwellers and founders of the minoan and helladic civilizations) were conquered and had the proto-greek language imposed on them, as conquerors have also done before. However, proto- and pre-greeks mixed during the rise of mycenean civilization and after the collapse of the bronze age and dawn of the greek dark ages with the foundation of city states, produced a homogenous genetic blend that has been so to today. That was according to anthropologists. Genetics are also starting to confirm that but now with Reich's r1b in Yamna and what have you, things are more complicated.

Before the IE migrations, the more to the north you went, the less populations you would find. Neolithic settlements have been found in quite large numbers in the south, especially the south east. Indo europeans would have an easier time geneticaly dominating a smaller population in the north than a much larger one further south. "Celtic-like" makes no sense as no one in europe is more than 50% indo-european genetically.

Anthropologists claim that in the Mycenean era that homogenous blend that has lasted to today was already formed. So this may suggest the Proto-Greeks did not arrive predominantly as R1, but they also may have carried other clades before they mixed with pre-Greek Minoan and Helladic civilizations. If that is the case than the genetic impact of those proto-Greeks had been quite significant.

We also have to consider that the pre-Greek civilizations most probably were not uniform culturally. All this indicates that the proto-Greeks may well have been a plurality when the mixing occurred prior to the Mycenean era. Their language dominated, though heavily influenced by pre-Greek people.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

We have very good evidence to believe that R1a came down during the IE invasions and now, with Reich, we have cause to believe the same for r1b too. According to anthropology, one group came down from the north and the other down through the caucasus, anatolia and what-have-you. It doesn't mean that they originated in anatolia, just that they passed through it. There is a nice study about armenians being a result of such old bronze age groups mixing between each other. My advice to you would be to wait for further results rather than try to draw your own with what little we know about r1b. Personally, I'd rather believe in genomes rather than languages. Visigoths conquered Spain but the Spanish speak latin. Turks conquered a mostly greek-speaking anatolia but they now speak a turkish language and are around 1/10th genetically turkish on average only.

Yeah, languages might change or stay the same with conquest depending on the conqueror, it is very puzzling and makes it hard to figure out who "originals" are in some cases.

[Bloodnigger]

Anthropologists claim that in the Mycenean era that homogenous blend that has lasted to today was already formed. So this may suggest the Proto-Greeks did not arrive predominantly as R1, but they also may have carried other clades before they mixed with pre-Greek Minoan and Helladic civilizations. If that is the case than the genetic impact of those proto-Greeks had been quite significant.

We also have to consider that the pre-Greek civilizations most probably were not uniform culturally. All this indicates that the proto-Greeks may well have been a plurality when the mixing occurred prior to the Mycenean era. Their language dominated, though heavily influenced by pre-Greek people.

Well, the place where proto-greek was spoken was in the regions of Epirus and balkan mountain people were among the indo europeans that spoke that language. Much like the slavs dragged down other populations with them (some I2 clades in the balkans), so would have the IEs. Elite dominance during the early mycenean period should at least be obvious. It could have gone no other way. The real shaking of the bottle happened during the collapse of mycenean civilization during the collapse of the bronze age where entirely new political entities were born and new tribal groups arose, much like among the germanic peoples during the later roman age.

[Dianatomia]

Another proof of ancient Greeks being more northern is that they had a stable economy. Countries of original European stock like Germany have a good economy today whereas Greek economy is a disaster

Actually they didn´t. The Athenians were bankrupt when building their city. They were constantly robbing other Greeks (mostly Ionian Greeks) to finance their projects and their empire in the Aegean.
Before they were a democratic state, Athens was a state of tyrants and oligarchs suppressing its population.
Similarly, the Spartans attacked the tribes surrounding them and enslaved them. They were to become the Hellots and were used as slaves to run their economy, but their military projects were their downfall economically. The Macedonians only gained true wealth when they beat the Persians and got hold of their treasury.

The Greeks with the best economic record and most adequate tax system were the Medieval Greeks. The Aegean region gained a lot of wealth and prosperity between the 8th and the 11th century. We tend to undervalue that.

[Bloodnigger]

Yeah, languages might change or stay the same with conquest depending on the conqueror, it is very puzzling and makes it hard to figure out who "originals" are in some cases.

The original, original proto-greeks you speak about would have obviously been very different to the greeks of today but also to every other modern european today. Statistically speaking, they were a small population compared to the much larger helladic one. Classical and modern greeks were a mixture of the two, 1 part proto greek 4 parts pre-greek. However, during the early mycenean age after the conquest, the upper strata would have been compromised entirely of the conquerors. Similar to what happened in roman, then saxon then finally norman england. Obviously, the saxons left their mark as they migrated there. The romans didn't or left something very negligible.

[altin]

^lol, nice conspiracy theory (mean altin)

Without machines, ancient empires relied in slaves to do most work. And slaves have existed till recently in USA. So, where do you think the descendants of those slaves are now?

Another point: There is a law in Nature, smaller animals exist in much larger numbers than bigger animals. For example there are many more mosquitoes than elephants. This is because smaller animals consume less food than bigger ones and we're all part of an equilibrium.
But there is an exception, humans. We are about 1000 times more than we were supposed to be, given our size. This is because we manipulate Nature, keeping in life many more cows, sheep, wheat, etc. and we have modified them through artificial selection to be much more productive.

Hunter-Gathers are basically animals, they don't manipulate the Nature, they're a natural part of its equilibrium. Which means that hunter-gathers represented only a small fraction of the human population of Europe 2 millenniums ago. Central and northern Europeans are NOT descendants of hunter-gathers, or at most a tiny fraction. For the most part they are descendants of people that populated the Mediterranean in antiquity. They didn't suddenly evolve and Mediterraneans didn't suddenly degenerate. It's what I described above.

[Bloodnigger]

Without machines, ancient empires relied in slaves to do most work. And slaves have existed till recently in USA. So, where do you think the descendants of those slaves are now?

For the most part they are descendants of people that populated the Mediterranean in antiquity. They didn't suddenly evolve and Mediterraneans didn't suddenly degenerate. It's what I described above.

Ancient empires also relied on freedmen to do the work. You also forget that population growth would have been far more than enough to tips the scales or that slave husbandry was allowed as a rule whereas it was the opposite. At any rate, slaves in the mediterannean did not come from the south but the north, as a rule. The greek word for thracian and dacian also became a slang for slave in antiquity. (later it was the slavs, I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery...rces_of_supply
So, are the people in the north the cause to blame for that? You answer me.

And no, you are not correct in your later assessment. As I have outlined before, neolithic settlements were more sparse and less populated in the north. HG genes survive there far more strongly than in the south as does IE steppe descent. This is a fact, not an assumption. One can also argue how the european mediteranneans degenerated when those who brought their degenerations upon them had far more advanced civilizations than them, from mesopotamia and phoenicia to the Abbasid Caliphate.

[Dianatomia]

Well, the place where proto-greek was spoken was in the regions of Epirus and balkan mountain people were among the indo europeans that spoke that language. Much like the slavs dragged down other populations with them (some I2 clades in the balkans), so would have the IEs. Elite dominance during the early mycenean period should at least be obvious. It could have gone no other way. The real shaking of the bottle happened during the collapse of mycenean civilization during the collapse of the bronze age where entirely new political entities were born and new tribal groups arose, much like among the germanic peoples during the later roman age.

I don´t know if the elites in the early Mycenean period belonged to a particular group. The anthropologist L. Angel analyzed the Royal Mycenean Graves from 1600 BC and noted a variety of headforms. Indicating that the Royals were mixed. Then again, similarly to your Slavic example, the proto-Hellenes were probably not uniform upon their arrival in Greece. So the early Mycenean elites could have been largely proto-Hellenic and still show a blend in headforms.

Anyway, Epirus and Thessaly is considered the motherland of Proto-Greek evolution, but ironically these regions have the highest rates of EV-13. Hard to say if this means anything.

[altin]

Ancient empires also relied on freedmen to do the work. You also forget that population growth would have been far more than enough to tips the scales or that slave husbandry was allowed as a rule whereas it was the opposite. At any rate, slaves in the mediterannean did not come from the south but the north, as a rule. The greek word for thracian and dacian also became a slang for slave in antiquity. (later it was the slavs, I think)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery...rces_of_supply
So, are the people in the north the cause to blame for that? You answer me.

And no, you are not correct in your later assessment. As I have outlined before, neolithic settlements were more sparse and less populated in the north. HG genes survive there far more strongly than in the south as does IE steppe descent. This is a fact, not an assumption. One can also argue how the european mediteranneans degenerated when those who brought their degenerations upon them had far more advanced civilizations than them, from mesopotamia and phoenicia to the Abbasid Caliphate.

To quote myself:

The "proof" is the reality itself. All sciences are capable to make predictions:
* Chemistry: acid and base are mixed up - some salt will precipitate - predicts chemistry.
* Biology: an elephant male and an elephant female are about to procreate - it will come out an elephant baby - predicts biology - definitely not a mosquito.
* Math: the discriminant has a negative sign - the equation has no real roots - predict math
* Physics: the power of the engine doubled - the acceleration will double as well - predicts physics.
etc.

In fact, it is the ability to make predictions the reason why sciences exist. If history would be a science, it would be able to make predictions. Yes, looking back in the past is a useful exercise only if it allows us to make predictions. The reason why a coach may look the recordings of the previous matches of the opponent team, is to help himself make predictions about the upcoming match.

A theory is meant to make predictions, when the events have already happened, then a theory should be able to explain them. What you called "my" theory, is not mine, but the important point is that it can explain the present and very likely predict the future.

All sciences are able to make prediction in their respective fields. What we know as history of ancient Greeks is handed to us by the church, the same people that handed us the miracles of Jesus. These are not the most passionate people about the truth.

If history would be a science, it should have predicted how the "ex-slaves" from the north (as you say) would have become masters in about 50 generations. And how "ex-masters" would need to be kept with loans to not bankrupt and end up as modern slaves in about 50 generations.

If such history of switching places is true, we should expect that in about 50 generations Afro-Americans to become masters of every thing while Anglo-Americans to become leaches.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Without machines, ancient empires relied in slaves to do most work. And slaves have existed till recently in USA. So, where do you think the descendants of those slaves are now?

Another point: There is a law in Nature, smaller animals exist in much larger numbers than bigger animals. For example there are many more mosquitoes than elephants. This is because smaller animals consume less food than bigger ones and we're all part of an equilibrium.
But there is an exception, humans. We are about 1000 times more than we were supposed to be, given our size. This is because we manipulate Nature, keeping in life many more cows, sheep, wheat, etc. and we have modified them through artificial selection to be much more productive.

Hunter-Gathers are basically animals, they don't manipulate the Nature, they're a natural part of its equilibrium. Which means that hunter-gathers represented only a small fraction of the human population of Europe 2 millenniums ago. Central and northern Europeans are NOT descendants of hunter-gathers, or at most a tiny fraction. For the most part they are descendants of people that populated the Mediterranean in antiquity. They didn't suddenly evolve and Mediterraneans didn't suddenly degenerate. It's what I described above.

Yes, this sort of goes along with my thinking, though I am not sure how much moving north there was so much as mass immigration to medditeranean from all over until one day you can't recognize it any more. Sort of like what's happening in USA today.