ancient macedonian
Home » General Questions & Answers » ancient macedonian
Post from iGENEA to 22.08.2010 13:08:38
Dear Stefan,
We do genealogical DNA-testing and we can not tell you how old nations are.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from Stefan to 18.08.2010 02:08:48
I have several questions....
1)Which is the oldest nation?
2)In world have more clean Greeks or clean Macedonians..?
3)Greek or Macedonian is older nation?
Post from iGENEA to 06.08.2010 09:08:14
@ Paul
If you are from Great-Britain with E-V13 you could be a descendant of Roman soldiers of Balkan Origin:
http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.htm
@ Boris
There is not only one genotype for each of these tribes but many profiles within every tribe.
We do not yet know every single profile of every sinlge tribe. This is why some modern lineages can not be assigned to one tribe and therefore for these profiles more than one tribe will show up as a possibility.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from boris to 05.08.2010 13:08:01
I can not understand - how determined the genotype of the Thracians, Illyrians, Greeks. Fulfillment of the requirements of science-predstaviternost statistics for the sample.
2. Fulfillment of the requirements of science, statistics predstaviternost sample of modern nations.
Bulgaria for example, to have scientific value, a survey is necessary to survey 1500 people.
Post from Paul to 31.07.2010 16:07:27
Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. My Y-DNA is E1b1b1a2 (V13). The earlest "ancestrial origins" on my Y-DNA test are Romania and Germany (Poland, Netherlands, Bulgaria and Hungary make strong, but second tier showings too). Our family name is Nicholson, obviously Greek in origin. Our related Y-DNA surnames are also Greek in origin, Georg and Phillip. Finally, my family came from Northern England (and perhaps northern Wales). What am I looking at here? Thracian? Dacian? Maceadonian? (if so, FYROM or Greek)?
Post from Di 1988 to 13.07.2010 19:07:57
And isn't this a proof that macedonians are not greek...and that Philip and Aleksandar were not Greeks...Macedonians can't be 100% ancient macedonians, but no one can be 100% ancient, thats fact...But macedonians are not greeks...thats a fact too.
Post from eastara to 01.06.2010 11:06:03
I think you are not reading carefully my posting. I am not denying Bulgarians being descendant from Anciant Thracians, just the opposite. I think you presume nowadays "Thracians" in Bulgaria are only the refugees from the Greek and Turkish part after the Balkan wars, just because they had so called "Thracian" organisations. Bulgarians who lived on the Northern slopes of the Balkans could also orininate from old Thracians.
And yes, Rodopes and other mountains could also serve as a refuge for autochthonous population.
The reality on the Balkans was that the plains were depopulated numerous times by different invader and the population was mainly expanding from the mountains and then shrinking back again.
If you noticed on the bottom of the Bulgarin DNA project here is map, where you can see with colorful flags the origin of the direct male line. Problem is most Bulgarians do not rember futher than the greatgrandfather, even those keen on genealogy could not go back before 1800. Having an old Bible does not mean that you ancestors alway lived in that village, it could well be brought from a different place.
But yes, you are right, better move this discussion to the Bulgrian forums.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 31.05.2010 18:05:54
Here we go again...There will always be one person trying to question everything!
Look Eastara (or whatever your real name is), I cannot claim for sure whether my ancestors have been in Eastern Thrace before the XVIII century, but I can argue they have been living there at least from the beginning of it (NOT TE END OF IT when, as you have posted, the Bulgarian migration took place).
Why can I claim that? Because unlike many people, my family have and still maintain something called \"rodova kniga\" (family book, no need to translate for you, obviously you are Bulgarian, your аpeal to me \"Iliyane\" makes me believe so). Among other things written in it, there are descriptions of important events like births, deaths,weddings, who took his bride from where, which family and so forth. It is a real treasure that book which we have donated to the Thracian society:))) However, we keep a copy of it.
Year 1713 - when it was started. Аlmost unreadble for me because of the archaic Slavo-Bulgarian.
Now, about the region where my ancestors used to live - it was Stranja Mountain and its southern upskirts, A MOUNTANEOUS REGION ANYWAY with a lot of places to hide in case of an invasion or raid! It is true that there were new settleres too, marriages with people from such families have been described in the book as well.
But I would like you to think about something - haven\'t you ever heard of resettling оf those who managed to survive? How is it possible for the people living at the upskirts of Stara planina (Balkan Mts) to cope with the situation but you totally deny those living in Thrace to have done the same? Aren\'t there any suitable mountains nearby? Look at the map, there are plenty of them!If they were completely wiped out,as many Bulgarian historians claim for numerous occasions throughout the history, why there is such a great percentage of Thracian genes in Bulgarians today on first place?
However, I am really interested what the DNA results would be if you go and test the population of Dobrudzha or the Gagauz people living in the Northern Black Sea coast region. I am sure you would hardly find any Thracian DNA there. This project says nothing about the geographical distribution of the individuals sampled, so we can just guess what the results would be.
And finally, how about those that migrated to Eastern and Aegian Thrace from the Rhodope Mountains? Why do you deny the possibility those people to be Thracians as well? Aren\'t the Rhodopes interesting today because of the many Thracian archaeological findings there? Everyone knows that the Bulgars hardly moved further south from Stara planina (Balkan Mts). Those areas were rather conquered than colonized.
I would like to apologize for posting this here, I know it is unappropriate place!
Post from eastara to 31.05.2010 16:05:24
Ilyane, don’t make the old mistake of directly connecting the present geographical regions of Macedonia and Thrace to the ancient tribes under the same name.
Thracians are considered the old inhabitants not only of the Thracian plain, but Northern Bulgaria and even Romania.
Haplogroup E1b1b1a2(E-V13) is considered by many to be a legacy of the Ancient Thracians and is common, even dominant both in Bulgaria and Macedonia – see the DNA Projects.
However Bulgarians and Macedonian went to live in the Aegean and South Eastern Thrace only at the end of 18 and beginning of 19 century. They came mainly from the mountainous regions – Balkan and Rodopes in Bulgaria and the numerous unproductive Macedonian mountains. Why then? – because the planes were devastated a little before that by the Moslim vagrants of Kyrjalii. Most of the population was killed, died of starvation after being robbed of everything or driven into the high country. A large part of the Bulgarians in South Eastern Bulgaria (Northern Trace) also migrated to Bessarabia and Southern Ukraine in 1829 in the population exchange with Russia. The vacuum was filled with migrant from the Balkan mountains and Macedonia. Greeks were not so keen to work the land, they preferred the port cities. Their stronghold was Istanbul , the islands and Western Anatolia. Most Greeks who nowadays live in Thrace are refugees from that part of Turkey, not autochthonous to the region.
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 31.05.2010 11:05:43
That is an interesting question of yours, Danny K.
There are many Thracian societies (probably as many as Macedonian) in Bulgaria, established mainly by immigrants from Aegean and Eastern Thrace during the early XXth century. They really have a lot of members and I should also point out that we keep good contacts with other similar organizations such as the Macedonian and Armenian societies (after all, we are all descendants of refugees and we are all Orthodox christians).
Such organizations make their best to keep indentities alive. However, Thracians, unfortunately do not have such a strong self determination as Macedonians have. That is easy to explain - there is no Thracian country, no Thracian church, no Thracian language, not enough people that remained in Eastern and Aegian Thrace to take care of. They were literaly wiped out by Greeks and Turks or expulsed to other countries.
Furthermore, a great brain-washing took place during the Communism decades that there is one homogenic Bulgarian nation and that we are a product of the mixing of Bulgars and Slavs. Why? Because former \"Soviets\" are mainly slavs and because many republics in present-day Russia have Bulgar identity, though they are very different from Bulgarians. Above all, citizens of these republics are Muslims at almost 100%. Nevertheless, these features of the people living in USSR were quite convenient for the ongoing political propaganda. Thracians and Macedonians with their identities did not fit into this puzzle. And their organizations had to exist semi-legally under constant control by the Bulgarian state. Official version was that antic Thracians and Macedonians have gone extinct and present-day Bulgarians have nothing in common with them.
Recently, after the great Thracian archaeological discoveries in Bulgaria (Perperikon, Tatul, Golyama Kosmatka Thracian thomb near Kazanlak, Kibela temple near Durankulak and the Varna Necropolis found in the 70\'s)people start to form this forgotten identity again. And usually, old people from those societies just smile at us as we have made a \"great\" discovery about
our roots.
History of the Balkans have to be rewrittten. Bulgarian history has to be rewritten too.
I would not say Thracian identity is discouraged any more in Bulgaria, it is just the old conservative historians that feel uncomfortable with such archaeological discoveries. People have started identifying themselves with ancient Thracians more and more often since it is a civilization 7 millenia old. Especially those from Southeastern Bulgaria (Northern Thrace)and those that are descendants of refugees from Aegean and Eastern Thrace. But we all assert on our Bulgarian nationality as well since we were born in Bulgaria.
Nevertheless, anyone can change his/her nationality, but not his ethnic identity.
We know we are closely related to and \"cousins\" of the Macedonians. We have similar history, especially recent one (remember the uprising of Ilinden-Preobrazhenie, it was Thracians and Macedonians fighting for their liberty, also the refugee waves towards Bulgaria, USA, Australia, Argentina etc. during the early XXth century - again formed mainly by Thracians and Macedonians). Thracian and Macedonian societies are often found sharing the same buildings, we commemorize the above-mentioned uprising together and so forth.
And finally, there are many marriages such as the one of my girlfriend\'s parents - her mother is Thracian (descendant of refugees from Aegean Thrace) and her father is Macedonian from Blagoevgrad (her grandparents are originally from Kriva Palanka region, present-day Republic of Macedonia).
Post from Danny K. to 30.05.2010 05:05:26
Iliyan, that was a very interesting post and you opened my eyes as the Thracians were really never on my radar screen. And you are correct, it makes lots of sense that we would be close to each other. I was wondering, how well developed is the Thracian identity and whether or not it is discouraged within Bulgaria?
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 29.05.2010 01:05:51
And a brief comment about Macedonian self determination as a separate nation: I, as many other people in Bulgaria, think that you do have the right of determining yourselves as Macedonians.
Furthermore, your language is distinct enough to call it Macedonian, although it is mutually intelligible with Bulgarian when speaking literary. In other words, we do not need an interpreter when communicating with each other. It is the same with Croatian and Serbian, Slovac and Czech, Russian and Belorussian, Norwegian and Swedish and so forth. Usually, Macedonian students learn Bulgarian language in just a couple of months, that is a proven fact.
However, I should point out that Macedonians in Bulgaria speak quite different Macedonian than you do guys. It is a dialect formed because of both influences - Bulgarian and Macedonian. The problem is that many Bulgarians have never met any Macedonians from Macedonia and therefore think that all of you speak that dialect. That is what I have to say to make it clear.
Now, a short comment towards the Greeks here - you consider all ancient tribes on the Balkans \"Greek\" - Illryans, Маcedonians, Thracians etc. I am ethnic Thracian and I know how much we \"love\" you. Your \"love\" towards us resulted in thousands of refugees from Aegean Thrace during the XXth century. Turks were no better in their approach but at least they officially apologized in the early 90\'s to the Thracian community in Bulgaria.
Finally, ancient Thracians were a bit of an older civilization than yours - Varna Necropolis dates back to 4600 BC. Mycenaean (Micean or whatever) civilization is 2700 BC аt the best. Тhe temple of the godess Kibela found on the island in the Durankulak lake(Bulgarian Black Sea coast) dates back to Sixth millenium BC. Just for comparison, Hellenic colonization of this sector of the Black Sea coast took place roughly 1000 BC. Perperikon sanctuary in the Rhodope mountains dates back to 5000 BC. Thracians had a lot in common with Macedonians but were regarded \"barberians\" by Hellenes. Nevertheless, it did not stopped them to \"borrow\" some of their gods, Dionisus is a typical example. By the way, Perperikon is the sanctuary of the above-mentioned god.
I still remember one joke from \"My big fat Greek wedding\" where one Greek claimed that the Hellenes built Stonehenge :)
So please, stop regarding both tribes as \"Greek\".
Post from Iliyan, Bulgaria to 29.05.2010 00:05:30
Hahaha :-) Well done, Danny K :-) I just checked that meaning :-)Hope to see my post before having been deleted ;-)
Post from Danny K. to 28.05.2010 06:05:00
I won't post this here as an accomodation to the gracious staff at Igenea, which is kind enough to maintain these boards. That said, I recently stumbled upon something rather interesting, which is the Webster's Dictionary definition of the word "Greek" in 1913.
http://www.dictionary.net/greek
Check out definition No. "2" (slang) from "Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48".
The reason I point this out is not to start a flame war, but to point out that what is considered common knowledge may just as easily have been politically manipulated. Remember, we have basically been silent for 80 years and have not had an international platform from which we can respond ...
Post from Danny K. to 27.05.2010 17:05:51
@2005Defender & @Rum
"5) When i look at myself i am from Greek Vlach origin, the fyromians say that vlachs and greeks are different
markers, strange because everybody knows that Vlachs and Greeks share same genetics??
Is it possible with an test to show my specific origin??"
=============
You're both missing a few very important pieces to the puzzle.
1. For most of recent Aroumanians were allied with and worked within the confines of the Bulgarian state and kingdom. I believe the Asen brothers were Aroumanians as were a number of Archbishops of the church in Ohrid.
2. The church was responsible for educating the schoolchildren. Prior to the year 1767, the church for most of Macedonia was the Archbishop of Ohrid. After 1767, the church of Macedonia was the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and later the Bulgarian Exarchate. The point being, I do not believe the historical record shows any Aroumanian affinity towards the Greeks until after the Patriarchate assumed control over the church parishes and the educational system there.
3. Not all Aroumanians had an affinity for the Greeks. Generally speaking, the urban (merchant) Aroumanians fell under the Greek spell while rural Aroumanians (farmers and artisans) tended to be loyal to the Bulgarian Exarchate.
4. There were a minimal number of Greeks in Macedonia historically. Most of the indigenous people in Macedonia claiming to be Greeks are none other than assimilated Aroumanians based on my read of history.
This is where the issue confuses me, and my apologies to my Macedonian friends who might be offended, but after reading some of these materials, I started wondering if term "Macedonian" might just mean assimilated Aroumanian or maybe even Slavicised Aroumanian? Maybe they started calling themselves that as a way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the people in Bulgaria proper? Who knows. It would make sense though given the historical timeline.
Post from iGENEA to 25.03.2010 07:03:55
Dear Mak1,
please read the post above.
The statistics were based on
recent scientific researches and therefore would have to be adapted continuously - and had been adapted continously.
But as they are not usefull for genealogy and it would take a lot of time to keep them up to date we decided to remove them, before they get outdated.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from Mak1 to 25.03.2010 01:03:30
Mr Scholz
Why some time ago you stated that statistics "were not Relevant for Genetic Genealogy"
And if the info was not wrong, then why was removed from your webside?
Post from iGENEA to 22.03.2010 15:03:27
Dear 2005Defender,
the information was not wrong, but has not a big relevance for someones personal family history.
Most people who perform such tests are interested in where their lineage came from and want to finde relatives.
Statistics about the distribution of ancient tribes are also interesting but do not help finding ones roots.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from 2005Defender to 22.03.2010 12:03:20
Mr Scholz.
You stated that those statistics for fYRoMians were "Not Relevant for Genetic Genealogy".
Does that mean that the information was wrong?
Post from Rum to 19.03.2010 09:03:47
Dear Mr. Scholz,
I think that we totally agree now. My only objection at your previous post was that you refered to the STR-markers as if there was a hidden secret there that could be named "a distinct antic Macedonian marker" and that was a little bit annoying since as you say "Therefore there is not one "Macedonian marker" or one "Hellenic marker"."
STRs should be different even amongst people of the same modern haplogroup, modern nation, antic tribe, etc. depending on the amount of intermixing of the certain population with the rest of the same haplogroup or even original mutations depending on the place they live (e.g. mountains and islands should be more distinct that valleys etc.).
Thank you for clearing this up. We totally agree now!
Post from iGENEA to 19.03.2010 09:03:00
Dear Rum,
nearly every ancient european tribe and every modern european nation is a mixture of these haplogroups.
That is not surprising as these groups are about 20.000 years old and people move through Europe since that time.
but that also means somebody with R1b from Scotland is more close related to somebody with R1b from Greece than to someone with I1 from Scotland - concerning only the pure male lineage.
But scotish R1b is different from greek R1b, because scotish R1b basically is celtic and greek is hellenic (or other) R1b. Its the same way with all ancient tribes.
Therefore there is not one "Macedonian marker" or one "Hellenic marker". There are different profiles in every haplogroup that belong to these ancient tribes. Because of that we have to speak of macedonian/hellenic/celtic profiles (plural).
But, as i told you already, we do not disclose these profiles because then our service would be for free and every other company could use this information.
Citation:
"Can you say for sure that "antic Macedonians" were not an Hellenic tribe (as the historians, anthropologists, linguistics and all non-DNA experts define the term Hellenic) based on your DNA STR marker analysis? I guess no... In case you can do this you could publish your findings in scientific journals and gain publishity and fame for you company but you know that this is not the case."
Nobody can say that for sure because there even are no rules, how genetic peoples, tribes, sub-tribes are defined. We can just discover differences - wherever we find differences we also find a new ancient genetic tribe.
Example:
We could distinguish the Vandals as a germanic tribe from other germanic tribes. Nevertheless they are as germanic as all the other tribes.
And of course Vandal-DNA is much more similar to other germanic DNA than to slavish or illyrian DNA.
Maybe its the same kind of relationship between ancient Macedonians and Hellenes, but of course they are not totally different as they do not descend from totally different populations in the past.
It is not the way, that we got one homogenic hellenic tribe on the one side and one homogenic macedonia tribe on the other side that do not have anything in common.
I could compare what we discovered to be Macedonian to what we discovered to be Hellenic.
Then i could tell if these Macedonians are "very" similar to Hellenes and therefore are more likely to be a hellenic tribe than a tribe of their very own.
But i guess, the "publicity" we would gain by that would result in another enormous discussion just the other way round.
And, as i said, there are no rules, how similar profiles have to be, to be considered having a relation like tribe and subtribe.
But until further notice we will not make an effort to clearify this special relationship between Macedonians and Hellenes.
Citation:
"Every Greek tribe (for example Arvanites, Pontians, Sarkatsanoi etc.) could become a distinct antic tribe if there was a reason to do so, i.e. if there was such a modern nation. Am I wrong with that?"
You are partially correct.
It does not depend on being a modern nation, it depends on the results of the studies we get to review. If there are some tribes that did not mix up to much with other tribes, they can be distinguished.
Not every european population has been sufficiently tested to find all tribes that could be found. Our list of tribes is not final for ever! Its just what we could discover during the last years.
If i would get a study from Pontus i could compare it to other profiles from turkey and greece and maybe we can define a new tribe called Pontians - as a subtribe of the Hellenes. But somebody got to do it.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from Rum to 18.03.2010 10:03:29
Dear Mr. Scholz,
please do not try to muddy the waters... We know that for example E-M78 and E-V13 are both Eb1b1 and that this in depth analysis can go much deeper (this is what you mean by the STR markers I guess). BUT who cares about these differences since both the so called "antic Macedonians" and "Hellens" are a mixture of even J, I, G, R1a, R2b etc. so these differences (STRs) are not statistically significant in order to establish a certain distinct antic group, and as you admitted your research was based in even more data (a bunch of scientific papers).
Can you say for sure that "antic Macedonians" were not an Hellenic tribe (as the historians, anthropologists, linguistics and all non-DNA experts define the term Hellenic) based on your DNA STR marker analysis? I guess no... In case you can do this you could publish your findings in scientific journals and gain publishity and fame for you company but you know that this is not the case.
I understand that you want to give strenght to your reference to an antic Macedonian distinct tribe, I understand that this is not wrong, but it is half truth. Every Greek tribe (for example Arvanites, Pontians, Sarkatsanoi etc.) could become a distinct antic tribe if there was a reason to do so, i.e. if there was such a modern nation. Am I wrong with that? I am almost sure that let's say Pontians or Greeks from Minor Asia could be even more different than "Hellenes" of what modern Macedonians are, even if I am from Minor Asia. Am I wrong with that too?
I don't say you did something wrong or that you lied. I just try to explain to Kiril what you actually did. In case there is a distinct antic Macedonian marker that is not based on the percentages of the most known haplogroups please let as know which that marker is since we are all very interested in scientific research.
Post from iGENEA to 18.03.2010 07:03:17
Let me just ad one comment:
Ancient tribes are not only defined by haplogroups but also by certain profiles.
Sometimes a very detailed haplogroup points to a sepcial tribe, but in every case the profiles of the STR-Markers have to be considered.
It is not the different amount of haplogroups that define an ancient tribe, its the difference between STR-profiles within a haplogroup.
That means, for example, that ancient macedonian, hellenic, celtic and germanic R1b-profiles look different.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from Rum to 17.03.2010 17:03:45
Hello Kiril,
I could not answer you till now because I was too busy. I will try to give a short answer now that I found some time.
First of all you talk about a certain Antic Macedonian genetic marker: As far as I understand, there is no such a thing as an Antic Macedonian, or Hellenic, or whatever marker. We know the genetic markers: they are the haplogroups such as I1, I2a, I2b, R1a, R1b, G2a, J2, J1, E1b1b etc. You have to also consider that these are just Y markers (male lineage) and at X markers (which are even older) one can find even less differences since men seem to move more than women. None of these markers can be corresponded to a certain nation, they are much older. Especially for Balkans, you cannot even find a prevailing marker, we are a mixture that took place long before the modern ethnogenesis. If you check the difference of modern Greeks and Macedonians do not find significant differences. Only that Macedonians have less J2 (13%) and more I1 and I2A (6% and 8% respectively). BUT dear Kiril, these are differences that one can find in different places of the same country too! J2 is a well known ancient marker that seemed to prevail in Greek islands before Mycenaeans, and just that could explain the differences of Is also! Meaning that if you exclude the islands, perhaps Greeks and Macedonians are almost the same in marker...
iGenea talked about a distinct antic Macedonian identity based on these little differences. There is no such a thing as a Antic Macedonian marker. In case you know there is please let me know.
iGenea gave some answers on this to some Greek warriors (as you call them): Greek warriors were surprised to see that they have a little more R1a (that is considered to be the slavic marker) than modern Macedonians (1,5%) and they thought iGenea are liers. I don\'t think so, whoever knows the history of Balkans and a little bit about science should understand that. But iGenea does not want to interfer (as a private company) and does not give certain explanations on the method they followed which should be the following: we gather markers from Greeks, Macedonians, Albanians etc. we find the precentages of the haplogroups and after that we talk about distinc antic groups: in case there was a let\'s say Thracian state and nation be sure that they would talk about an antic Thracians. That\'s not totally wrong but neither totally right... I hope you understand the whole misunderstanding here...
Know let\'s go to your points:
1. About Danaoi: I could accept whatever you write. I cannot distinct between myth and reality for sure, but let\'s accept what you right. So, Danaoi are from Cyprus. That\'s fine. Only a nordist wouldn\'t be happy with that. I am not a nordist. I wrote to you that I am not sure about the northern invasion. BUT Dorians are those who were previously called Heracleides, actually the tribes that moved on to the Northern Greece and returned some centuries ago back to southern Greece. After their return they were called Dorians. Both spoke Greek, Danaoi and Dorians. Even in Crete before Danaoi they spoke Greek (linear B). What contradicts with what I told about ancient Macedonians? All you write could be truth and also ancient Macedonians being dorians and from Argos. Alexander claimed to be from the house of Argeads (i.e. from Argos, and ancestry from Hercules). Do you find any contradiction here? I think we say the same thing.
2. More or less the same as point 1. I really cannot understand where we disagree.
Read Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus, p. 78: What I write is what he writes. I admit I have not studied Borza, I will do in the future, but I really cannot understand where you think I disagree with him.
Well that\'s all for now. I will try to find time and read Borza, he seems to be interesting. Please let me know if you disagree with what I write because I want to understand where you think we disagree.
Aaaa I wrote too much for now and got tired. Waiting for your answer...
Post from Kiril to 16.03.2010 06:03:05
Sorry Rum, the end of my previous post dissapeared. I will try again.
Hello Rum,
You are not sure what my specific points of argument are in regards to what you have said? Well I have many, but I will start with one that is relevant to this forum and one that you keep using as an argument to discredit the figures published by Igenea re: Antic Macedonian marker.
The Dorians and the myth of northern Greek tribal invasions;
On your conclusion that the supposed Dorian (2) invasion emanated from the north "probably Macedonia", this is only a convenient supposition, not based on facts (i.e. archaeological), but solely on modern interpretations of ancient writings/myths and the previous Mycenaean invasion. The pre- Doric, Mycenaean (1) invasion from the north is also in this category, not based on hard facts, but only convenient modern Hellenic truths. These northern Greek tribal migrations are archeologically non factual, but when studied from an archaeological perspective a different picture appears.
1) Firstly, the Mycenaean's were archeologically very similar to the Cypriots of the time and when looked at in conjunction with ancient testament about the Dananu, then another more probable scenario appears as to their origin.
The earliest testament about the Danan or Dananu are Egyptian accounts of the Dananu and connect them with the Greeks of Cilicia (in Anatolia) and Cyprus.
Later, Greek tradition related how Danaus after coming out of Egypt came with his daughters to Greece. In Greece the daughters of Danaus intermarried with the local aristocracy and their children became rulers. In honour of Danaus the local Pelasgian Greeks renamed themselves DANAIOI by which term the early Greeks are often referred to by Homer, though some say that by "Danaoi" Homer was referring more to a specific ruling warrior class..
"Danaus, the father of fifty daughters on coming to Argos took up his abode in the city of Inarchos and throughout Hellas [i.e. Greece] he laid down the law that all people hitherto named Pelasgians were to be named Danaans" (Strabo 5.2.40 quoting Euripides ca. 480-406 BCE).
Diodorus Siculus (i;28;1 5; 90-27 BCE) reported:
They say that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and also the nations of the Colchi in Pontus.
There is an opinion that the Danaioi formed a peculiar military class amongst the Pelasgian Greeks. At all events the Greek account may be understood as saying that a small number of DANITES came to Greece, intermarried with local rulers, gave their name to an early already present segment of the population, and not much more than that.
Archaeologists now believe that an offshoot of the Hyksos, about the time when they were expelled from Egypt came to Greece, conquered it, and laid the basis for Mycenaean civilization. They identify these Hyksos with the Danaioi of Greek tradition. This version also infers that the Danaioi were relatively few in numbers though qualitatively determinative.
So in conclusion, there is a relative Mycenaean / Cypriot archeological link and testament from Greek, Egyptian and Hebrew sources in regards to the Danan and their migrations to Cyprus and main land Greece (Argos). What else can a reasonable mind conclude? Certainly not a northern invasion!
2) As for the Dorian's northern origin, this too is most likely a convenient presupposition, based solely on the myth of the northern Mycenaean invasion prior. Again, archeologically speaking the Dorians are invisible according to many reputable sources including Eugene Borza the "Macedonian expert" as he is known.
If anything, apart from the architectural style named after them, the Dorian dialect is the only factual piece of this puzzle that may shed light on their origin. This dialect seems to be widespread in southern Greece, the Peloponnese and the whole of Crete, but totally absent in northern Greece and Macedonia.
This would logically indicate a Dorian origin somewhere other than north of Macedonia, probably by sea. A more likely origin would be somewhere from the eastern Aegean/Anatolian region, hugging the coast and entering mainland Greece at some point bound for the Peloponnese or from the south by sea via Crete.
So again Rum, get your head out of Herodotus' arse and do some real, factual research. Your supposition about ancient Macedonians being of a Dorian origin is wishful thinking, not based on any fact at all. Where as what igenea have published are factual scientific results that identified an Antic Macedonian genetic marker that is present a in a majority of people from my country and not yours. It is very simple and factual, not myth.
P S Nothing wrong with Herodotus, it is our interpretations of something ancient into a modern, often BIASED context that is the problem. This is your folly.
Post from Kiril to 16.03.2010 05:03:55
Hello Rum,
You are not sure what my specific points of argument are in regards to what you have said? Well I have many, but I will start with one that is relevant to this forum and one that you keep using as an argument to discredit the figures published by Igenea re: Antic Macedonian marker.
The Dorians and the myth of northern Greek tribal invasions;
On your conclusion that the supposed Dorian invasion emanated from the north "probably Macedonia", this is only a convenient supposition, not based on facts (i.e. archaeological), but solely on modern interpretations of ancient writings/myths and the previous Mycenaean invasion from the north theory. The pre- Doric, Mycenaean invasion from the north is also in this category, not based on hard facts, but only convenient modern Hellenic truths. These northern Greek tribal migrations are archeologically non factual, but when studied from an archaeological perspective a different picture appears.
1) Firstly, the Mycenaean's were archeologically very similar to the Cypriots of the time and when looked at in conjunction with ancient testament about the Dananu, then another more probable scenario appears as to their origin.
The earliest testament about the Danan or Dananu are Egyptian accounts of the Dananu and connect them with the Greeks of Cilicia (in Anatolia) and Cyprus.
Later, Greek tradition related how Danaus after coming out of Egypt came with his daughters to Greece. In Greece the daughters of Danaus intermarried with the local aristocracy and their children became rulers. In honour of Danaus the local Pelasgian Greeks renamed themselves DANAIOI by which term the early Greeks are often referred to by Homer, though some say that by "Danaoi" Homer was referring more to a specific ruling warrior class..
"Danaus, the father of fifty daughters on coming to Argos took up his abode in the city of Inarchos and throughout Hellas [i.e. Greece] he laid down the law that all people hitherto named Pelasgians were to be named Danaans" (Strabo 5.2.40 quoting Euripides ca. 480-406 BCE).
Diodorus Siculus (i;28;1 5; 90-27 BCE) reported:
They say that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and also the nations of the Colchi in Pontus.
There is an opinion that the Danaioi formed a peculiar military class amongst the Pelasgian Greeks. At all events the Greek account may be understood as saying that a small number of DANITES came to Greece, intermarried with local rulers, gave their name to an early already present segment of the population, and not much more than that.
Archaeologists now believe that an offshoot of the Hyksos, about the time when they were expelled from Egypt came to Greece, conquered it, and laid the basis for Mycenaean civilization. They identify these Hyksos with the Danaioi of Greek tradition. This version also infers that the Danaioi were relatively few in numbers though qualitatively determinative.
So in conclusion, there is a relative Mycenaean / Cypriot archeological link and testament from Greek, Egyptian and Hebrew sources in regards to the Danan and their migrations to Cyprus and main land Greece (Argos). What else can a reasonable mind conclude? Certainly not a northern invasion!
2) As for the Dorian's northern origin, this too is most likely a convenient presupposition, based solely on the myth of the northern Mycenaean invasion prior. Again, archeologically speaking the Dorians are invisible according to many reputable sources including Eugene Borza the "Macedonian expert" as he is known.
If anything, apart from the architectural style named after them, the Dorian dialect is the only factual piece of this puzzle that may shed light on their origin. This dialect seems to be widespread in southern Greece, the Peloponnese and the whole of Crete, but totally absent in northern Greece and Macedonia.
Post from Rum to 12.03.2010 11:03:27
Hello Kiril,
yes I have considered that possibility and found out that I was as everyone. I also don't claim that I know everything and perhaps the history I know is distorted by nationalistic propaganda in the fields I have not search for myself. This is not strange... I accept it.
For all the rest you write, I cannot answer or even check for myself as you write since you don't write nothing about your disagreements with me... I 'd be more than happy to listen...
PS: What's wrong with Herodotus?
Post from Kiril to 10.03.2010 23:03:36
Hello again Rum,
Stop upsetting people with all this everything was Greek, it was not all Greek. Open your mind to alternatives, listen to people, there maybe something to what they say. Do not belittle and dismiss peoples arguments outright and label them as poor unfortunates that are either misinformed or subjects of nationalist propoganda.
Our understandings of world history are always evolving and changing to some degree, all the time. So, get your head out of Herodotus's arse and listen/consider alternates even if briefly, you will be wiser for the experience.
Have you ever considered that you may be the poor unfortunate that is a subject of nationalist propoganda???
Post from Rum to 09.03.2010 08:03:57
Dear GogaMishiu,
from what you write I think you refer to Sarakatsani people not Vlachs: In Greece there are Vlachs and Sarakatsani. You can refer to Vlachs as Aromanians and yes originally they were latin speaking populations. On the other hand, Sarakatsani were never latinized and until today speak Sarakatsanika an Greek dialect with many ancient Greek elements. During the 19th century there was a confusion about Vlachs and Sarakatsani due to their common way of life (nomadic herders).
Sarakatsani seem to be of pelasgic origin, there are theories that they are the purest of the Greeks etc. About Vlachs: their origin is difficult to trace, northern pelasgian maybe, Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian, or all those together since as I said before their name indicates mainly a linguistic group called like that from the non-Roman populations wherever they met Romans at the borders of the Roman Empire.
You should know that the most prominent Greek benefactors of the newly established Greek state were Vlachs (not Sarakatsani) from Ioannina and Metsovo (let's just mention Metsovion Politechnion, i.e. the National Technical University of Athens) you can find Institutions and monument from their money all over Athens.
I know Romanians claim Vlachs as Romanian people and this is not totally wrong: Romanians as Roman speaking orthodox Rums are in a way Vlachs par excellance, although it seems that there is a distinction in Romania between Romanians of Dacian origin and the Vlach origin Romanians.
About Achilles: here you make the same error. You cannot project to the past modern ethnogenetical developments. Perhaps there is some truth concerning the Sarakatsani origin of Achilles (though I am not sure about that, who could be?) but talking about him as if he was a Vlach, i.e. someone who speaks... latin is a little bit crazy.
Don't make the same error as our friends Macedonians do: even the name Romania is our common heritage (common I mean modern Romanian, Greek, Macedonian etc.). Romania was the original name of the Byzantine Empire! We are all Romanians in a way, Greeks still call themselves Romioi (i.e. Romans in Greek) and if you search a little bit more in history you will find out that the decision for Romania to be called Romania was made after a proposal of a Greek member of the Romanian parliament since no other modern state had used it until then. So whatever I wrote about modern Macedonians is also valid for Romanians: we are the same people, at least we used to be and feel, despite the bad memories of the Fanatiotes' domination of your area (a sad story for which I am not so proud of...).
Post from GogaMishiu to 08.03.2010 21:03:45
Vlachs or Wallachians are not Greeks, sorry... Although they do not call themselves as such, you may adress to them with the name of Rumanian or Romanian. They are latin speaking people not greekish. This population is the indigenous one on the Balkan area and not the greeks. Vlachs are ancient Pelasgians (Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Macedonians) latinised by the Romans, hence the name they carry to this day. Btw, the ancient Achilles was one of them...
Post from Rum to 04.03.2010 20:03:16
About the Vlach question: as far as I know, Vlachs is not a certain tribe. Vlachs were called by the germanic tribes all those Romans who were on the other side of the border of the Eastern Roman Empire, i.e. Vlach meant Roman in germanic languages. This is the reason you see this name in so many regions of Europe (apart from Greece also in Romania "Wallachia", in Belgium "Wallons", in England "Wales" words that come from the same germanic source).
Btw, Nikola and Kiril what about Anastasia? I really like their music...
Post from nikola to 04.03.2010 16:03:56
hahaha well said iGENEA i doubt that even this will shut the greeks up though...
i think they should stop concentrating on us and examine their "pure" genes.
keep up the good work i am getting a test soon cheers
Post from Rum to 04.03.2010 13:03:18
Dear Kiril,
I don't like being asked a question with two given answers and be labeled by which I will choose. Things are a lot more complicated. But I will answer since I believe you have a genuine anxiety and interest in the discussion.
I fully support the right of every human being to self determination. Even DNA cannot judje it. Even if modern slavic speaking Macedonians were of a slavic genetical background (which is not true in my opinion, at least not more than to a certain low extend) every human being has the right to CHOOSE his identity and change what he wants to be by adopting the culture of another tribe civilization etc.
For the nations: Nations are fake artificial abstracts, thus I don't recognise any right to nations. As you see I use a name which used to mean all orthodox christians, I prefer it from "Greek" although I speak Greek.
I also can perfectly understand that a certain culture, let's say ancient Greek culture, may by the time be split into two different cultures or the other way round. I could even understand Turks to claim being part of ancient Greek heritage for example (which in a certain extend is true) and also for the rest of the Europeans and even Afganiis after the Indobactrian kingdom etc. etc. In the same way, not only I recognise the right to every modern slavic speaking Macedonian to claim heritage from Ancient Greece, on the opposite!
My problem is that after VMRO coming to power, it followed a very stupid propagandistic politic (I agree that this perhaps is a result of the Greek nationalistic politic) that tries to prove that Ancient Macedonians were not Greek and that modern Greeks are exactly the same as the ancient and modern Macedonians exactly the same as the ancient Macedonians, i.e. ancient Macedonians were not Greek! This is crazy... You cannot project into the past procedures that took place long after... that's all...
Nationalism tries to find what separated us in order to build a separate national consioussness not what is common. If you feel Macedonian you should either use the term in a certain way which means certain things OR you should accept also the Greek heritage of ancient Macedonians as yours. You cannot altogether use the nationalistic antiGreek propaganda of VMRO (which originally NEVER claims descent from Ancient Macedonians) and also feel descent of Ancient Macedonians simply because Ancient Macedonians were Greek and spread Greek culture (and language) thoughout the world!
Some Greeks say: if they feel Macedonians they should feel Greek start speaking Greek and unite with Greece. Ok, that's an idea, but I disagree. I thing that your slavic culture heritage if precious for the Balkan area and I may accept it as an slavoGreek hybrid. Of course if you feel more Greek than Slav I would have no problem, I just like Slav culture also. What I try to say is that: don't be a nationalist, thing about the crazy situation in which nationalism (a western ideology of the last two centuries) brought us today... You ask about self determination as a right: I accept that but self determining yourself as Ancient Macedonians and Greeks as something different you also determinate the other (i.e. Greeks) and this is really annoying especially when VMRO distorts and falsify history in order to do that...
If there is something you don't understand please ask, but please let aside all these stupid "Hellenic warrior" labels aside, especially when you speak with a person that believes that perhaps even the Greek revolution and the creation of modern Greek state was not the best solution for the Balkans area...
Post from Kiril to 03.03.2010 22:03:24
Hello Rum,
With all that you have said, "we are all the same people" etc. Answer me one thing;
Do the people of the Republic of Macedonia have the right to self determination? That is are we allowed to call ourselves and our nation what we want, just as Greece and Bulgaria have named their nations on historical geographical era's themselves???
Lets see if you are genuine or just another Hellenic warrior, but in another mask!
Post from Rum to 03.03.2010 12:03:57
1. Greeks cannot be of "pure ancient Greek blood" since there is no such a thing as "pure ancient Greek blood". We are talking about culture here, not DNA.
2. Sure they moved to the south, anyone knows that. When Fallmerayer told that modern Greeks were just a bunch of slavs, Paparigopoulos rewrote Greek history based on the cultural continuity argument and not on DNA as the European romantic philhellenes liked and his answer was "so what?".
3. Although I agree with the first two of your statements, I totally disagree with that. Philip is a Greek name, Philip was Greek, a Dorian from the house of Argeads how could he be barbaric antiGreek? Were from do you make such a claim? Philip choose Aristotle to be Alexanders teacher, not Alexander himself.
4. Confusing modern Macedonians and Bulgarians is not a Greek invention, but a Macedonian one. Please study VMRO's history.
Finally: as you may know, Greeks love Slavs, in case you are Serb you should know that. The problem with modern Macedonians is not their DNA. For me the problem is that they make the same error that Greeks made just after the formation of the Greek state, i.e. trying to create a history that neglects all historical data and continuity. In other words, I believe that Greeks, modern Macedonians, Bulgars, Serbs and even Turks, are more or less of the same genetic stoke (the ancient Bulgars, Turks etc. were much less than the local populations they conquered and mixed). We are the same people when it comes to DNA. What is outraging is to falsify history and talk historic nonsense like that ancient Macedonians were not Greek in order to create myths for ethnogenetic reasons. As I have written in some of my previous posts we used to be the same people, i.e. Orthodox Rums, we just spoke different languages. It is a same to accept all that stupid western nationalistic propaganda that separates us. You should know the there were many slavic speaking Macedonian with Greek national consiousness and fought for Greece during the Balkan wars. What separated us at that time was the division amongst the followers of Patriarchate and the followers of Exarcheia (self proclaimed Bulgar church) an Ottoman trick to separate Rums, and of course the benefits that the Great Powers would have by splitting the Balkans in so many weak little national states (you should know what I am talking about as a Serb).
I really like Russian women, but I prefer Serbian women :p
Post from Tesla to 02.03.2010 18:03:38
First big mistake that Greeks make is trying to proove "pure hellenic blood" and that is virtually imposibille.
Second big mistake is that they beleive that slavs in six centry stoped on the contemporary Macedonian/Greece border. That is also impossibile (naturally, they moved all the way to soutern parts of Greece. And why would they stop on any border in six centry?)
Third big mistake greeks make is calling ancient Macedonians - Greeks. Macedonians were semi-barbaric tribe, but some Macedonian kings worshiped greek culture (like Alexander) and others hate it (like his father Phillip).
Forth big mistake is confusing contemporary Macedonians with Bulgarians. Traditionaly and linguistically they not close enough for the people that know their cultures and languages. For a foreiners, Serbian, Croatioan, Bulgarian and Macedonian language are the same, but in fact - they only belong to a same linguistic sub-group (south-slavic).
Statistical measurements have scientific errors, and iGenea's measurement do have that same errors. But science proved that statistic data composed of only 50 data records, can make maximum mistake od 2%, so it should be out of the mind to beleive that contemporary macedonians could go below 28% (in relation to ancient) nor more that 32%. Same goes for slavic influence on greeks (you may count plus-minus 2%).
It is not mine to say, but Greeks, no mater how proud they are, should accept reallity, that contemporary Macedonians have the same right (if not even more) on ancient Macedonian history as Greeks have. They should shake hands to their northern neighbours. Also, Greeks should be proud that they slavic roots. I mean, have you seen the russian ladies? Big, blond, beautiful... what is so wrong to be a slav, I cant realy understand.
Post from iGENEA to 14.01.2010 07:01:29
Dear 2005defender,
iGenea does no longer draw up statistics for the amount of ancient tribes in modern nations.
Thats why i can not tell you the exact amount on a scientific basis that is up to date.
1) Language and genetics often differ. There were results that indeed showed a slightly higher percentage for slavs in Greece than in Macedonia.
Bulgarians are a modern Nation, not an ancient tribe, thats why they do not show up regarding that time (900 BC - 900 AD)
2) The old data showed a bigger amount in percent and in number of ancient Macedonians in modern Macedonia than in Greece but i have no data that is up to date. It is always possible that data changes because of new scientific results. Before we could finally answer the question where there is a bigger genetic influence of ancient macedonians we need much more data. But as i said, iGenea does not do such calculations any longer because there is not benefit for the customers.
3) Commercial labs use the same methods research institutes do. Our results are reliable, the FTDNA lab is used by a high number of customers.
Ancient Macedonians are of course not the same as modern Macedonians.
Although these genetic tribes are related, there are ancient macedonian profiles that can be distinguished from ancient greek/hellenic profiles.
4) I guess he or she referred to no special nation, because that is in fact true for many nations, if not every.
5) We can not distinguish Vlachs from other ancient peoples because it is a modern term. Vlachs probably descent from different anciend tribes that lived on the southern Balkans.
A test could show your specific origin regarding to the tribes that can be distinguished (like Hellenes, Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians, Slavs and others) that is correct.
But not everybody can be linked with only one special tribe and therefore more than one tribe could be possible.
Of course we never know that before so i suggest to just give it a try and then we will see how to interpret your results.
Roman C. Scholz
iGENEA
info@igenea.com
www.igenea.com
Post from 2005defender to 13.01.2010 13:01:43
Hello Igenea,
As you know we Greeks are having a name dispute with fyrom.
I know that for political questions i am not on the right adres, so i wont ask anything political.
Still i have some \"genetic questions\" because since Igenea posted the ancient results.
1) How is it possible that the Slavmacedonians claim that the percentage and concentration slav markers and traces in greece is higher then in macedonia
I am proud greek, for me this is not understandable. Why else do they speak SLav and are Slavs??
They speak Bulgarian, why are there no Bulgarian traces in these results??
Off course i am not a DNA expert, so can you answer me??
this question in simple terms, so that i can understand what you are saying??. Is it true what they say, that there are more
Slav traces or markers found in Greece then in fyrom
2) Fyromians claim that they have ancient macedonian traces. 100% homogenous is off course an illusion, but still
every historian say that ancient MAcedonians are the same as Ancient Hellenes, therefore greek??
Is it really true that you published results which stated that there are more ancient Macedonian traces or markers found
in fyrom then in Greece??and when its true i am sure you can\'t have a good explantion for that!
When we JUST look at genetics, who can claim a bigger part \"ancient Macedonianism\" Greece or fyrom??
3) How reliable are your results?? Many people say that the results are crap cause you are an commercial labaratory
and not a research intstitute? I even heard that u used Iranian and Turkish mice results to define a ancient MAcedonian
marker??? so are these serious results or just moneymakers??
Is it possible to define a good ancient macedonian marker??some say that igenea described ancient macedonian
the same as the citizens of macedonia today??the ancient macedonian marker is off course the same as the
ancient Hellenes
4) In a earlier reply in another topic i read that one of the workers said:\"Many nations keep names that do not totally fit their ethnic composition. \"
He meant off course fyrom and not Greece right?? So how can he state that Macedonia is not a correct name for fyrom and publish results
that says different??How serious are these results???
5) When i look at myself i am from Greek Vlach origin, the fyromians say that vlachs and greeks are different
markers, strange because everybody knows that Vlachs and Greeks share same genetics??
Is it possible with an test to show my specific origin??
I hope you can answer these questions , so that the Slav macedonians know that Macedonia was and is only Greek!!
gr
2005defender