Germanic Dorian Invasion of Greece.

[SharpFork]

Here's an essay on Dorians (probably posted over 100 years in the last 6-7 years here).

http://www.casa-kvsa.org.za/1969/AC12-03-Dietrich.pdf

There is no evindence to support they could have been a different people.

Where did the Dorian dialect magically come from? Why was there ethnic conflict in various archaic Greek states between Dorians and non-Dorians, with people clearly having the ability to distinguish themselves centuries after the supposedly non existent Dorians came?

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Dorians. Mycenean Greeks didn't magically wake up on day speaking a different dialect and considering themselves different in very specific set of territory.

[xripkan]

Greeks are very genetically different today even when you just look at Aegeans and Mainland Greeks, there is absolutely no reason why they would be homogeneous when they were divided in city states that had very strict laws on citizenship and when they were divided ethnically, politically and linguistically.

The samples of Mycenaeans are from different places and they indicate they were quite similar. The reason why modern Greeks are different genetically is beacause of the Slavic/Steppe invasions in Mainland Greece that did not happen in islands.
In islands a higher West Asian admixture comparing to Mainland Greece is evident. Furthermore the Hellenization of native populations of Anatolia during the post-Hellenistic era made Greeks even more different genetically.
Ancient Greeks were possibly somewhat different but much less than modern Greeks.

[Faklon]

Where did the Dorian dialect magically come from? Why was there ethnic conflict in various archaic Greek states between Dorians and non-Dorians, with people clearly having the ability to distinguish themselves centuries after the supposedly non existent Dorians came?

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Dorians. Mycenean Greeks didn't magically wake up on day speaking a different dialect and considering themselves different in very specific set of territory.

Of course none will read the article.

Later evolution of dialects is irrelevant, Attic is different than Mycenaean Greek too.

[SharpFork]

The samples of Mycenaeans are from different places and they indicate they were quite similar. The reason why modern Greeks are different genetically is beacause of the Slavic/Steppe invasions in Mainland Greece that did not happen in islands.
In islands a higher West Asian admixture comparing to Mainland Greece is evident. Furthermore the Hellenization of native populations of Anatolia during the post-Hellenistic era made Greeks even more different genetically.
Ancient Greeks were possibly somewhat different but much less than modern Greeks.

Mycenean samples are not homogeneous, one of them has almost no Steppe ancestry, one has little and other 2 have substantial amounts, the samples without Steppe also has elevated ancestry from MENA. This on top of the fact that all those samples were from either the southern Peloponnesus or Salamis, very close to one another. We have no samples north of Athens.

The difference in Greeks is not tude to just "Slavs", modern Aegeans look different from Minoan and Mycenean samples too, there is no reason to believe that the samples we have now tell everything about Iron Age Greek genetics, not even close. Just look at how much the studies on Latium, Tuscany and Sicily revealed.

[SharpFork]

Of course none will read the article.

Later evolution of dialects is irrelevant, Attic is different than Mycenaean Greek too.

There are thousands of articles, will you respond to all single articles from modern scholars that support the existence of Dorians during the early Iron Age?

Dialects are not irrelevant, languages don't magically arise out of nowhere with the borders and ties the Greek dialects have.

[Faklon]

You mean Empuries samples? They do not seem to have Celtic/Iberian admixture.

Isn't it Italian(SW)-like?

There thousands of articles, will you respond to all single articles from modern scholars that support the existence of Dorians during the early Iron Age?

Dialects are not irrelevant, languages don't magically arise out of nowhere with the borders and ties the Greek dialects have.

Dialects are not languages, the language is the same and we don't know much about Myceneans.

Another set is the semivowels /j w/ and the glottal fricative /h/ between vowels. All were lost in standard Attic Greek, but /w/ was preserved in some Greek dialects and written as digamma ⟨ϝ⟩ or beta ⟨β⟩.

It is unclear how the sound transcribed as ⟨z⟩ was pronounced. It may have been a voiced or voiceless affricate /dz/ or /ts/, marked with asterisks in the table above. It derives from [kʲ], [ɡʲ], [dʲ] and some initial [j] and was written as ζ in the Greek alphabet. In Attic, it may have been pronounced [zd] in many cases, but it is [z] in Modern Greek.

Ionics were an invansion too?

Many of these scholars are debated in the article if you could spend one minute instead of wishful thinking.

[Ethel]

oh, another complexed southern euro overestimating germanic input in his country

[SharpFork]

Dialects are not languages, the language is the same and we don't know much about Myceneans.

So what if it is the same language, there can be no ethnic identity without a dsitinct language? There can be no invasion if they merely spoke different dialects apparently.
Big brain argument.

Ionics were an invansion too?

Greek sources don't talk about Ionians invading, they talk about them being driven out by chain migrations started by others.

Many of these scholars are debated in the article if you could spend one minute instead of wishful thinking.

He doesn't talk about linguistics or even really address different arguments, nice try. He merely criticzes and entire idea wholesale without questioning whether parts of the old idea really come in a package, Dorians could have existed without completely replacing everything where they came to rule.

It's a fucking 6 page pdf and you treat it as if it answers everything

[xripkan]

Mycenean samples are not homogeneous, one of them has almost no Steppe ancestry, one has little and other 2 have substantial amounts, the samples without Steppe also has elevated ancestry from MENA. This on top of the fact that all those samples were from either the southern Peloponnesus or Salamis, very close to one another. We have no samples north of Athens.

The difference in Greeks is not tude to just "Slavs", modern Aegeans look different from Minoan and Mycenean samples too, there is no reason to believe that the samples we have now tell everything about Iron Age Greek genetics, not even close. Just look at how much the studies on Latium, Tuscany and Sicily revealed.

The main difference of Myceneans samples is the level of Steppe admixture. It makes sense to me since they were dated between 1500-1300 BC amd they were from different places. As a result the level of Steppe admixture is different. This is not a big difference. The Western Asian components existed to some extent both to Minoans and Mycenaeans.
About Modern Aegeans I told you that they have extra Western Asian admixture from the late Antiquity or even later.
I suggest you to read the artice about the origin of Minoans and Mycenaeans.
Furthermore even non-Greek ancient Balkan populations seem to be close to ancient Greek samples. Check BGR_IA and Deu_MA_str300. They plot close to ancient Greeks. It seems that existed a genetic continuum in ancient Balkans.

[SharpFork]

The main difference of Myceneans samples is the level of Steppe admixture. It makes sense to me since they were dated between 1500-1300 BC amd they were from different places. As a result the level of Steppe admixture is different. This is not a big difference. The Western Asian components existed to some extent both to Minoans and Mycenaeans.
About Modern Aegeans I told you that they have extra Western Asian admixture from the late Antiquity or even later.
I suggest you to read the artice about the origin of Minoans and Mycenaeans.

So? Dorians would probably also "only" differ in some amounts of Steppe and MENA admixture, not sure why you think there has to be a huge difference for it to matter.

Furthermore even non-Greek ancient Balkan populations seem to be close to ancient Greek samples. Check BGR_IA and Deu_MA_str300. They plot close to ancient Greeks. It seems that existed a genetic continuum in ancient Balkans.

BGR_IA has quite some more Steppe ancestry and less MENA ancestry, look if you think those 2 are the same you might as well say Greeks were like Etruscans or Spaniards, those are real differences.

A genetic continuum doesn't refute nor change the fact we still don't know if a genetic change happened with the bronze collapse in mainland Greece, we need more samples, from more parts of Greece and see if the linguistical division follows genetics and to what extent.