Germanic Dorian Invasion of Greece.

[SharpFork]

Instead of attacking me I would suggest you to study more about genetics. You are just making wrong assumptions.
Neolithic South Greece + Isparta_EBA-like populations=Minoans
Target: GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
Distance: 1.6432% / 0.01643208
74.0 GRC_Peloponnese_N
26.0 Anatolia_Isparta_EBA
This is what I try to explain you that these references are wrong because they are somewhat ancestral to Ancient Greeks.

And what if they are? We don't know how really iron age Anatolians looked like especially considering the diversity of ethnicties, if I remove them little changes in terms of how different Greeks are. It's not really relevant, point remains Greeks today are very different.

If you want to model with both Ancient Greek and Anatolia references you can just use the Ancient Greek samples and the Greek Central Anatolia sample which also contains some Mycenaean DNA.

How do you know that?

You can also try populations like ARM_LBA, Iran_Hajji_Firuz and some Levant to capture the extra eastern genetic components modern Greeks have, comparing to Ancient Greeks.

The Levantine and Caucaisan samples already do that, plus that's what I was trying to using Bronze age Anatolian samples. The problem with Armenian Bronze Age samples is that they have too much Steppe which modern Armenians don't have, so something weird is going on and using them will make the model weird.

Central Anatolian Greeks are the descendants of Anatolian populations of Byzantine empire. This is why these samples can be used as proxy for Medieval Anatolian populations.

Read here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....-s-perspective
Furthermore we have an Anatolian Greek from the Ottoman era. Check
IND_Roopkund_B_o,0.108132,0.144205,-0.044123,-0.061047,-0.008309,-0.0251,-0.000705,-0.007154,-0.018816,0.012392,0.011367,0.00015,-0.004608,0.004954,-0.011672,-0.005038,0.007041,0.003801,0.005656,-0.01088,-0.005116,0.000618,0.001849,0.001807,0.006227

That might work, but for some reason G25 doesn't think that sample is a perfect match for Greek Central Anatolia, despite being similar in ancient components.

In general all the data we have just verify the historical truth. Except you have a different view about the historical truth.

Genetics and "historical truth" don't go hand in hand, even if someone's view of history is as correct as it can be given the evidence it's hard to know the genetic impact of many events, so I'm not sure where you arrogance is coming from, I am the one claiming we don't have enough to know, you instead make wild claims about being "100%" sure and what not.

[SharpFork]

Epirus DNA is a cuck


Besides that who is more Dorian? Superdorian or the normal Dorian?

Dorians don't exist lmao, people woke up one day thinking they were Dorians but they were not apparently.

[SharpFork]

Edit:NVM

[Renekton]

Stupid thread

[xripkan]

And what if they are? We don't know how really iron age Anatolians looked like especially considering the diversity of ethnicties, if I remove them little changes in terms of how different Greeks are. It's not really relevant, point remains Greeks today are very different.



How do you know that?


The Levantine and Caucaisan samples already do that, plus that's what I was trying to using Bronze age Anatolian samples. The problem with Armenian Bronze Age samples is that they have too much Steppe which modern Armenians don't have, so something weird is going on and using them will make the model weird.


That might work, but for some reason G25 doesn't think that sample is a perfect match for Greek Central Anatolia, despite being similar in ancient components.


Genetics and "historical truth" don't go hand in hand, even if someone's view of history is as correct as it can be given the evidence it's hard to know the genetic impact of many events, so I'm not sure where you arrogance is coming from, I am the one claiming we don't have enough to know, you instead make wild claims about being "100%" sure and what not.

First of all I don't have arrogance. I just state the data and only the data.
You just mentioned above that Dorians do not exist. So you proved I am right to suspect you have your own perception about history.
I explained you that Minoans have an extra source of eastern components compared to Neolithic Greeks and this source seems similar to the EBA Anatolian references and this is why it is wrong to use them as extra Anatolian ancestry for Modern Greeks. This is not my conclusion. It is known.
IND_Roopkund_B_o is a perfect match for greek Anatolians. 0.021 distance is a proof that this sample clusters with Anatolian Greeks and we know it was from this region.
You give me the impression that you are biased. You have your own opinion which is obviously wrong and it is incosistent with the data we have. That's why you don't accept it.

[Dorian]

You just mentioned above that Dorians do not exist. So you proved I am right to suspect you have your own perception about history.

He's being sarcastic to faklon's comments.
His own agenda is that they were a distinct people/identity ,judging by a previous discussion he probably jerk offs to some savage "ie" sea people fantasy or something , probably an eurogenes' groupie too.

[xripkan]

He's being sarcastic to faklon's comments.
His own agenda is that they were a distinct people/identity ,judging by a previous discussion he probably jerk offs to some savage "ie" sea people fantasy or something , probably an eurogenes' groupie too.

Kseroume apo pou einai autos o malakas?

[SharpFork]

First of all I don't have arrogance. I just state the data and only the data.

No you drew conclusion on the entire genetic situation of iron age Greece based on 6 samples.

You just mentioned above that Dorians do not exist. So you proved I am right to suspect you have your own perception about history.

...that was clearly a joke.

You give me the impression that you are biased. You have your own opinion which is obviously wrong and it is incosistent with the data we have. That's why you don't accept it.

What exactly is MY opinion? That we don't have enough samples to say how iron age Dorian Greeks were? What a stretch!

[SharpFork]

He's being sarcastic to faklon's comments.
His own agenda is that they were a distinct people/identity ,judging by a previous discussion he probably jerk offs to some savage "ie" sea people fantasy or something , probably an eurogenes' groupie too.

My bios is something I came on the spot because I had to put something, I'm half South Asian and half European so I took that, why are you so obsessed?

Also I didn't claim Dorians were a distinct "people" but that it was a really identity that ancient Greeks could meaningfully differentiate from others and in some cases it was source or part of internal conflicts.

[xripkan]

No you drew conclusion on the entire genetic situation of iron age Greece based on 6 samples.

...that was clearly a joke.


What exactly is MY opinion? That we don't have enough samples to say how iron age Dorian Greeks were? What a stretch!

The conclusion is not made by me but by the genetists here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/
Maybe it doesn't like you but we can't change the facts according to your preferences.

Dorians were speaking a Greek dialect which belonged to the low social class of Mycenaean Greece. The sources from Herodotus and other ancient Greeks historians and the findings of modern historians indicate that they were just part of the Greek tribes that were marginalized during the Mycenaean era.
And now except these data we also have the genetic analysis of the Iron Age Greeks who left Greece for Iberia centuries after the Dorian domination in Greece where every group was mixing and moving and as a result any different input would be visible after so many centuries(at least to an extent).
It is obvious that there is very little to no chance Dorians were different than Mycenaeans in genetic terms.

Furthermore if we don't have enough samples to say how Iron Age Greeks were then we don't have enough samples for most people ancient or modern and there is no sense to discuss.