# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  "Northern" elites in Greece and Rome.

## Boss

So I am slightly concerned about certain stories regarding ethnicity in Ancient Greece and Rome and whether they are true. One story goes on something like this:

There were in Ancient Greece and Rome two kinds of groups. The commoners (slaves included) and the aristocracy. The aristocracy which was responsible for the creation of what we now think of as Greek or Roman culture, was of a different ethnicity than the commoners. The commoners were tribes original to the South whereas the aristocracy was comprised of Northern invaders. Northern not as in Northern Greece or Italy but as in Northern Europe - say, Scandinavia. These two groups did not, at the time, intermingle. They were two separate ethnic groups living in the same geographical area and being very aware of their ethnic differences ("we [the aristocrats] not only think differently than you [the commoners] do because of our culture, we also look different, very different, from you")

I am interested in it as a purely positive theory of the DNA of the elites in Greece and Rome. Is it true and how do we know? is there a scholarly consensus on the matter?

My main issue with such theories is that they are almost always debated by people with an axe to grind. Usually racist scumbags.

From the Northerners we will hear: "Our ancestors invaded the South and created Greco-Roman culture (essentially). We are the ubermenschen after all."
From the Southerners we will hear: "yeah, no you suffer from a massive inferiority complex so you have to come up with theories in order to counter the suspicion that your ancestors looked very much like those loud Germanic barbarians in the movie Gladiator"

----------


## LeBrok

I think it is a fact that often through history of Europe, and not only, some strong tribes showed up in some areas and dominated locals for a period of time. Till they eventually mingled with locals long enough to create one nation.
We know about strong Germanic dominance over Britain, and most of western europe in middle ages. We know about dominance of Slavs over Balkans in middle ages too, then dominance of Turks, Mongols, Russians.
I don't think that Greece and Italy is anything special in this department. They might be singled out in respect of being first strong european cultures that influenced the rest of continent for millennia. And because we don't have good documents from beginning of Greece or Rome, these events can play in hands on both side of the spectrum, and could be easily distorted.

In case of Italy the events are better known, being more recent. We know that dominant tribe were Latins, and that they were Indo-Europeans. We are rather certain that they came from West Asia or maybe far East Europe. Nobody is sure how they looked exactly upon their arrival, before mixing with locals. They might have been a bit blonder than typical Italics, if someone cares.
One is certain, they had dominated the region on their superior organization, from military to administration. It has to be mentioned that even a strong domination is not an easy sailing thorough history. There was, IIRC, couple of hundreds of years when Toscans dominated Latins, and I think they spoke some Afro-Asiatic language.

If it comes to Greece's beginning, I'm not even close to a decent guess, lol. I think that at this time, let's say 2,000-1,000BC, there were many EI tribes coming through area like Celts, Latins. There was also strong satem EI influence in the area of Thracian and Dacian tribes, the branch from east IE family that included proto-proto Balto-Slavic. The case of proto-germanic or nordic is less likely to be present there, though who knows. Looking at this map below there was a strongly define flow of Nordic I1 HG south to Macedonia. It might have happened during Germanic expansion from 1000BC to 500AD. As well it might have been old hot spot of I1 that moved north after ice age.

----------


## Vallicanus

> For the record, I didn't delete your thread about "Northern" elites in Greece and Rome. It must have been one of the moderators. I am also surprised since, after reading it now, I have to say that I find no reason for its deletion and I have restored it. I think you have a point, and I have been saying for many years similar things, notably that the "Northern" Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian steppes became a ruling elite throughout Europe, Central and South Asia, and even parts of the Middle East (Hittites, and possibly the Pharaohs from the 13th century BCE onwards, if King Tut's Y-DNA is indeed R1b1b2a1). I am also convinced that the original Romans and other Italic tribes were predominantly "Northern" Indo-Europeans (R1b), which explains why some had blond hair and blue eyes and looked Northern European as late as members of the Julio-Claudian dynast, in contrast with the Middle-Eastern Etruscans (J1, J2, E1b1b, G2a), who were always depicted as black-haired, dark-skinned, bearded and long-nosed, and actually more Semitic than Anatolian or Caucasian in looks. Modern Italians are a blend of the two (+ the Greeks of Southern Italy + other people, since people came from all over the Empire to Rome).
> 
> As for the ancient Greeks, it is pretty obvious that the aristocracy, or at least free men, were ethnically distinct from slaves (at least until the second century CE, when classes started to mix more under Roman influence) because slaves were bought from neighbours (notably Egypt) or taken among defeated enemies. However the Classical Greeks were probably much more blended (Indo-European + Middle Eastern + Balkanic) than the Romans at the time of the monarchy of republic.


Well, if the Roman elite looked non-Mediterranean it was only in the sense of being Alpinid or Dinarid or occasionally Borreby (like Pompey the Great) not Nordid in the Germanic or early Slavonic sense.

Show me one Roman bust that indicates a Nordid physiognomy.

----------


## Maciamo

I think you have a point, Boss, and I have been saying for many years similar things, notably that the "Northern" Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian steppes became a ruling elite throughout Europe, Central and South Asia, and even parts of the Middle East (Hittites, and possibly the Pharaohs from the 13th century BCE onwards, if King Tut's Y-DNA is indeed R1b1b2a1). I am also convinced that the original Romans and other Italic tribes were predominantly "Northern" Indo-Europeans (R1b), which explains why some had blond hair and blue eyes and looked Northern European as late as members of the Julio-Claudian dynast, in contrast with the Middle-Eastern Etruscans (J1, J2, E1b1b, G2a), who were always depicted as black-haired, dark-skinned, bearded and long-nosed, and actually more Semitic than Anatolian or Caucasian in looks. Modern Italians are a blend of the two (+ the Greeks of Southern Italy + other people, since people came from all over the Empire to Rome).

As for the ancient Greeks, it is pretty obvious that the aristocracy, or at least free men, were ethnically distinct from slaves (at least until the second century CE, when classes started to mix more under Roman influence) because slaves were bought from neighbours (notably Egypt) or taken among defeated enemies. However the Classical Greeks were probably much more blended (Indo-European + Middle Eastern + Balkanic) than the Romans at the time of the monarchy of republic. That is because Greece was unified under Indo-European rule much earlier than Italy (nearly 2000 years earlier) under the Mycenaeans. The ensuing Dorian invasion and Dark Ages changed the status quo and allowed a remix of the gene pool within Greece, and the creation of new regional ethnicities due to the geographic division of Greece. This all led to the emergence of the regional identities in Classical Greece, namely the Attic, Doric, Achaean, Thessalian, Ionic and Aeolic. I believe that these dialectal/sub-cultural groups were probably not that homogeneous genetically vis-à-vis one another.

Even today we can see big discrepancies between the haplogroup distribution of, say Thessalian (high in E1b1b, J2b and R1a) and Cretans (high in J2a and R1b). Since men move less than women to get married (men are more likely to inherit the property of their forefathers), the mapping of Y-DNA haplogroups shows much more regional variations (even very localised "hotspots") than autosomal maps, which tend to get more homogeneous over time within a same linguistic group. This is basically why I expect to find more autosomal variations between Greek and Italian regions in ancient samples than in modern ones. I also expect that the "class gap" would be much more obvious in ancient samples (probably very distinct among early Mycenaean ones, and in early Roman ones, prior to the Etruscan conquest).

----------


## Maciamo

> Well, if the Roman elite looked non-Mediterranean it was only in the sense of being Alpinid or Dinarid or occasionally Borreby (like Pompey the Great) not Nordid in the Germanic or early Slavonic sense.
> 
> Show me one Roman bust that indicates a Nordid physiognomy.


Obviously, Italic people were closest with the Alpine Celts (Hallstatt, La Tène) and the Gauls, so their appearance was naturally more Alpinid than Nordid. The Nordid type (long-headed, long-faced, tall, straight-haired) is essentially derived from I1 people, not R1b people. Only the blue eyes and blond and red hair might owe more to R1b and R1a people than I1 in northern Europe.

My point is more that ancient Romans looked very different from the typically Southwest Asian-looking Etruscans from the pottery, frescoes and sculptures, and that modern Italian are somewhere in between. Emperors like Augustus, Tiberius or Caligula look more Celtic (or something like it, which is in fact Italic) than Middle Eastern. Other notable Romans like Cicero, Tacitus, Brutus (elder or younger) or even Julius Caesar, look more French, British or South German than Greek, Anatolian, Levantine or Arabic by today's standards.

----------


## Yetos

> So I am slightly concerned about certain stories regarding ethnicity in Ancient Greece and Rome and whether they are true. One story goes on something like this:
> 
> There were in Ancient Greece and Rome two kinds of groups. The commoners (slaves included) and the aristocracy. The aristocracy which was responsible for the creation of what we now think of as Greek or Roman culture, was of a different ethnicity than the commoners. The commoners were tribes original to the South whereas the aristocracy was comprised of Northern invaders. Northern not as in Northern Greece or Italy but as in Northern Europe - say, Scandinavia. These two groups did not, at the time, intermingle. They were two separate ethnic groups living in the same geographical area and being very aware of their ethnic differences ("we [the aristocrats] not only think differently than you [the commoners] do because of our culture, we also look different, very different, from you")
> 
> I am interested in it as a purely positive theory of the DNA of the elites in Greece and Rome. Is it true and how do we know? is there a scholarly consensus on the matter?
> 
> My main issue with such theories is that they are almost always debated by people with an axe to grind. Usually racist scumbags.
> 
> From the Northerners we will hear: "Our ancestors invaded the South and created Greco-Roman culture (essentially). We are the ubermenschen after all."
> From the Southerners we will hear: "yeah, no you suffer from a massive inferiority complex so you have to come up with theories in order to counter the suspicion that your ancestors looked very much like those loud Germanic barbarians in the movie Gladiator"




Nope, 
an example for you is the AThenean koinon 'κοινον Αθηναιων' the Bank of ATheneans, which many times had as manager slaves, 
the word slave in ancient Greek has 2 words Δουλος ειλωτας, σκλαβος, 
1 means the worker, 
2 means the slave but as an animal (ες κλωβον) in cage, 

the upper class in geece always were the εφοροι efori a cast of priests and judges, 
but the main class was a kind of commoners, 
also existed class name as μετοικοι (foreign citizens) 
and the class of δουλοι
so we speak about a major 4 class society

δουλος 
α) someone who lost its freedom due to punishment by a judge for an amount of years (bankrupt, thief coward etc)
b) someone who's life been spared in battle 
c) someone that was sold or bought as slave from another state or country due to the above 2 reasons.

douloi had no chain, had their own houses wifew kids, but they we were not allowed to vote, 
they main time was to work until the amount of money to be gathered to buy freedom, or to pass the 'time' 
that is why word become synonym with lazy, and smart tricks, πονηρος , the one who tries to avoid pain.

the one you call rulling class,
that depends in the society before the unification of Greeks,
for example in Theba we find Αναξ an emperror, a one man show,
in Athens before Κυλωνειο αγος we find a system that some are land owners judgeς priest and warriors
something like the nobles of medieval Europe
if you check Drakon's law and case Δρακωντας you realize that

the differences among 
i) tyrrant and king
tyrrant was the absolute law 
King was the commander of army, replaced by general in some states

ii) oligarchy feudalism and aristocracy 

oligarchy is considered Sparta, but was it?
the vote priviledge belong to commoners ομοιοι who were the only one that fight, 
coomoners could follow or even kick a king with voting system
THEY HAD NO LAND AND MONEY 
does that make them a rulling class?

feudalism that system existed in Athens before democracy, in Makedonia etc but replaced cause of no supporters, In Makedonia kept even to ALexanders times but with division of powers,
so in that system in the begin a family owned a land, but at the end that families become only army powers, and major elected. judges etc, a system that soon took a form like smmall kings under 1 king

aristocracy never existed with the Plato's meaning
it existed as councils and judges mainly in EPirus and some islands 
aristocracy means the power to the expert-best one 
such system we see when councils had big power 
mainly a priest society, 

Democracy 

in Ancient Greece Democracy had not the meaning of today, 
democracy in each state was different, but mainly based on to take hard dessicions 
the voters were a class,
so to vote you should be 
a free man (no depth, convict etc) to some cities had a piece of land 
a defender, able to fight or had fought for city
born by mother and father as citizen
that excludes slaves and priests and foreigners from voting system
(THAT IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE OF MODERN EUROPE) 

Plato aristocracy
Plato turn against democracy due to who is elected, 
he believed that democracy is not the best sysem cause ignorant people could be elected in positions,
remember that sometimes in some public posotions the desicion was made by luck (cubes decibes) 

so the one you call rulling class 
I do not know if we can call like that a class of warriors who could decide, in some cities had no money or land

many cities even REJECT THE INHERITAGE OF POSISTION. that is a big step to reject a rulling class, so that is why sounds strange to my ears the rulling class.

----------


## Boss

> I think you have a point, Boss, and I have been saying for many years similar things, notably that the "Northern" Indo-Europeans from the Pontic-Caspian steppes became a ruling elite throughout Europe, Central and South Asia, and even parts of the Middle East (Hittites, and possibly the Pharaohs from the 13th century BCE onwards, if King Tut's Y-DNA is indeed R1b1b2a1). I am also convinced that the original Romans and other Italic tribes were predominantly "Northern" Indo-Europeans (R1b), which explains why some had blond hair and blue eyes and looked Northern European as late as members of the Julio-Claudian dynast, in contrast with the Middle-Eastern Etruscans (J1, J2, E1b1b, G2a), who were always depicted as black-haired, dark-skinned, bearded and long-nosed, and actually more Semitic than Anatolian or Caucasian in looks. Modern Italians are a blend of the two (+ the Greeks of Southern Italy + other people, since people came from all over the Empire to Rome).
> 
> As for the ancient Greeks, it is pretty obvious that the aristocracy, or at least free men, were ethnically distinct from slaves (at least until the second century CE, when classes started to mix more under Roman influence) because slaves were bought from neighbours (notably Egypt) or taken among defeated enemies. However the Classical Greeks were probably much more blended (Indo-European + Middle Eastern + Balkanic) than the Romans at the time of the monarchy of republic. That is because Greece was unified under Indo-European rule much earlier than Italy (nearly 2000 years earlier) under the Mycenaeans. The ensuing Dorian invasion and Dark Ages changed the status quo and allowed a remix of the gene pool within Greece, and the creation of new regional ethnicities due to the geographic division of Greece. This all led to the emergence of the regional identities in Classical Greece, namely the Attic, Doric, Achaean, Thessalian, Ionic and Aeolic. I believe that these dialectal/sub-cultural groups were probably not that homogeneous genetically vis-à-vis one another.
> 
> Even today we can see big discrepancies between the haplogroup distribution of, say Thessalian (high in E1b1b, J2b and R1a) and Cretans (high in J2a and R1b). Since men move less than women to get married (men are more likely to inherit the property of their forefathers), the mapping of Y-DNA haplogroups shows much more regional variations (even very localised "hotspots") than autosomal maps, which tend to get more homogeneous over time within a same linguistic group. This is basically why I expect to find more autosomal variations between Greek and Italian regions in ancient samples than in modern ones. I also expect that the "class gap" would be much more obvious in ancient samples (probably very distinct among early Mycenaean ones, and in early Roman ones, prior to the Etruscan conquest).


Uhh, I did not say you deleted my thread Maciamo. I don’t know who did.
Before I get to the point, I need to say that I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of that theory. I am not a supporter of racism or any kind of theory that posits superior and inferior “races”. I am only interested in the facts.

Now on to the point:
I don’t actually hold any views strongly enough to defend them. I don’t know what research is conducted on this area but I have read AJ Gregor’s (a political scientist at UC Berkeley) ‘Nordicism Revisited’ (google it - Ican't post links apparently) where he sort of deals with this issue (very old paper – 1961). His views are what I am gonna post below – not mine. 

You say that it is obvious that the Greek aristocracy was ethnically distinct from rest of the population but where do you base that on? And why are dark hair/eyes associated with the non-aristocracy? AJ Gregor denies that was the case though I am not entirely convinced. But where do _you_ base that view on? (it’s not clear from what you write above)

That is one.

Two: you mention “light” features and you associate them with the aristocracy (that some had light features though I am not sure that if _some_ had light features that that means anything for the majority of the aristocrats). Gregor mentions that one has to take into account the fact that the ancient writers lived in Southern Europe and what was considered “light” there would’ve been considered slightly dark in the North. He actually says that when Ancient Greeks first met northern tribes, they were at a loss as how to describe them precisely because they looked so much unlike them. He also cites Pseudo-Aristotle who doesn’t have particularly good things to say about “light” features. Aristotle is another writer who doesn’t have good things to say about what you say are “Northern” features (again, Gregor’s citations).

Why is that not a good argument against reading ancient sources from a Northern perspective where “light” = Northern light?

You mention "looks" - are you referring to statues? Gregor does not think that Greco-Roman statues resemble modern Northern Europeans (he also cites Sergi and Coon who nevertheless I think are far from being uncontroversial). He thinks they do look more “modern Mediterranean” than they look “modern Nordic” though I am not sure that that runs against what you say. Does it?

Finally, and this is my own view, you somehow associate “beards” with the non-aristocrats though I think you may have meant only the Etruscans not the Greeks. It’s very well documented that the Greek aristocrats were bearded (as any bust will attest) – you’ll have a hard time finding a bust of a philosopher or a politician who was not bearded (especially among the Classical Greeks who were after all the reason why Greece is known today). In fact, Hadrian grew a beard in order to signal his philhellenism (whereas all Roman Emperors before him were clean shaven – except Nero, another philhellene - a lot of Roman Emperors after him and especially the philhellenic Emperors like Aurelius, Commodus, etc were bearded)

Oh I also didn’t know that Attic and Ionic were separate tribes. I thought the Athenians were considered to be Iones – Ionians. Spartas and Cretans being Dorians.

----------


## Maciamo

> You say that it is obvious that the Greek aristocracy was ethnically distinct from rest of the population but where do you base that on? And why are dark hair/eyes associated with the non-aristocracy? AJ Gregor denies that was the case though I am not entirely convinced. But where do _you_ base that view on? (it’s not clear from what you write above)


Let's not mix up everything. I wrote that I expected the original _Romans_ to be light-skinned, and of a more northern (read Central-West European, as opposed to East Mediterranean). 

As for the Greeks, I only said that the Mycenaeans (c. 1900-1100 BCE), especially in early centuries of their rule, were most probably a distinct ethnic group of (fair skinned/eyed) Indo-Europeans from the steppes (belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a and/or R1b). I specifically explained that the Greek classes almost certainly got mixed during the ensuing Dark Ages, so that Classical Greeks were already heavily hybridised, though with different admixtures depending on the regions. This hypothesis of regional genetic variations within ancient Greece is strongly supported by the present-day distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups (my example of Thessaly vs Crete). 

So I didn't said that the aristocracy of Classical Greek (C. 510-323 BCE) was fair-skinned/eyed. They were probably as mixed as modern Greeks in this regard, though probably lighter in average because Classical Greek imported a lot of Egyptian slaves that only blended with the rest of population from the late Antiquity and Middle Ages. 

Alexander the Great, who was blond with one blue eye (the other was brown), appears to have been an exception within Greek society in having a fair complexion. I merely hypothesised earlier in this thread that this could be because he had more Mycenaean (do Indo-European) blood in him, perhaps because Macedonian nobility didn't mix as much with the rest of the population during the Dark Ages.

The Romans started intermarrying with the (dark-skinned/haired/eyed) Etruscans from the 3rd century BCE, and increasingly over the next centuries. The Romans also mixed with the Greeks from southern Italy around that time. By the 1st century CE, many Romans had also become hybridised, resembling more the Greeks (slaves excluded) than they had ever before.

In the heydays of both Rome and Classical Greece, it appears to me that the elite of both countries were already considerably hybridised between Bronze Age Indo-Europeans and the earlier Neolithic population. Many great civilisations in history have actually arisen from an initial hybridisation between two populations. It was the case, for instance, of the Japanese (Yayoi + Jomon), the Persians (Indo-Europeans + Elamites), the Indians (Indo-Europeans + Dravidians), the Celts (Indo-Europeans + Megalithic people), the Greeks (Indo-Europeans + Neolithic population), the Romans (Indo-Europeans + Etruscans + Greeks), the British (ancient Britons + Anglo-Saxons + Normans), etc. In most of these cases, the arrival of new migrants/conquerors brought an unprecedented vitality and brought about the flourishing of a unique new culture (and often language too). Ethnic blending between very different peoples, perhaps because it enriches the local gene pool, is generally positive for the development of a population (at least for a few centuries, until the "boost" generated by the genetic mix settles down).




> You mention "looks" - are you referring to statues? Gregor does not think that Greco-Roman statues resemble modern Northern Europeans (he also cites Sergi and Coon who nevertheless I think are far from being uncontroversial). He thinks they do look more “modern Mediterranean” than they look “modern Nordic” though I am not sure that that runs against what you say. Does it?


I wrote that I thought of ancient Romans (not Greeks though) as more Central European in looks. I do no think at all that they looked Scandinavian/Nordic, but neither do I think that they look "Mediterranean", for the simple reason that there isn't a "Mediterranean" look. Spaniards look completely different from Greeks who look completely different from Palestinians, who completely different from Sardinians, who look completely different from Moroccans. Even Italian look quite different depending on the region. Some types are found exclusively in Sicily, others in Sardinia, and others still in Northern Italy. You won't find anybody who looks like Al Pacino in Lombardy (I mean among "pure" Lombards, not Sicilians who moved to Lombardy). There may still be Italian people who look like the ancient Romans I mentioned, but they are more common in northern Italy, and even more common in some parts of France or southern Germany.





> Finally, and this is my own view, you somehow associate “beards” with the non-aristocrats though I think you may have meant only the Etruscans not the Greeks. It’s very well documented that the Greek aristocrats were bearded (as any bust will attest) – you’ll have a hard time finding a bust of a philosopher or a politician who was not bearded (especially among the Classical Greeks who were after all the reason why Greece is known today). In fact, Hadrian grew a beard in order to signal his philhellenism (whereas all Roman Emperors before him were clean shaven – except Nero, another philhellene - a lot of Roman Emperors after him and especially the philhellenic Emperors like Aurelius, Commodus, etc were bearded)


I never wrote anything about beards being related or unrelated to aristocracy. Why would you think that ? Many Roman emperors had beards, but many were clean-shaven too. It has more to do with fashion. Many medieval European kings had beards, but few of them did from the 17th century onwards.

What I did write is that ancient Etruscans and Greeks, as depicted in arts, were often bearded (including Greco-Roman gods). They also always had curly hair (while Roman aristocrats of the 1st century BCE and CE usually had slightly wavy hair).

----------


## Boss

I am afraid I am somewhat ignorant of the history of migrations and genetics and that’s partly why I started posting here. To learn. So be patient with me.



> Let's not mix up everything. I wrote that I expected the original _Romans_ to be light-skinned, and of a more northern (read Central-West European, as opposed to East Mediterranean).


Right I’m sorry. But why would that be? You repeat it below. That you expect ancient Romans to resemble Northern Italians (and even more the French and South Germans?!) as opposed to Central(?) or Southern Italians (?) _more closely (though not entirely)_. But why that would be? 




> As for the Greeks, I only said that the Mycenaeans (c. 1900-1100 BCE), especially in early centuries of their rule, were most probably a distinct ethnic group of (fair skinned/eyed) Indo-Europeans from the steppes (belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a and/or R1b). I specifically explained that the Greek classes almost certainly got mixed during the ensuing Dark Ages, so that Classical Greeks were already heavily hybridised, though with different admixtures depending on the regions. This hypothesis of regional genetic variations within ancient Greece is strongly supported by the present-day distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups (my example of Thessaly vs Crete).


Got it. Again, same question as above arises. How do we know that the Mycenaeans belonged to R1b and/or R1a? you don’t have to type an answer yourself btw. I am happy to read any papers.




> So I didn't said that the aristocracy of Classical Greek (C. 510-323 BCE) was fair-skinned/eyed. They were probably as mixed as modern Greeks in this regard, though probably lighter in average because Classical Greek imported a lot of Egyptian slaves that only blended with the rest of population from the late Antiquity and Middle Ages.


Right, I misunderstood you though I don’t think C. Greeks were nearly as mixed as M. Greeks because the latter have received waves of Vlachs, Arvanites, Franks, Venetians, etc which mixed with the local population during and after the period of the Eastern Roman Empire (the atrociously named "Byzantine" Empire). The so-called “gasmouloi” in the Morea during the Latin occupation were the result of Franks and Greeks intermarrying (usually Frankish men and Greek women). Also, Sally McKee (in her ‘Uncommon Dominion’), says that intermarriages (Greek and Venetian) were common among the nobles and even more common among the commoners in Venetian Crete (especially much later when the original Venetian families had basically become...’Cretanised’).
Anyways, this is a huge issue in itself and I need not worry about that now.




> I never wrote anything about beards being related or unrelated to aristocracy. Why would you think that ? Many Roman emperors had beards, but many were clean-shaven too. It has more to do with fashion. Many medieval European kings had beards, but few of them did from the 17th century onwards.
> 
> What I did write is that ancient Etruscans and Greeks, as depicted in arts, were often bearded (including Greco-Roman gods). They also always had curly hair (while Roman aristocrats of the 1st century BCE and CE usually had slightly wavy hair).


There was a peculiar sentence about the middle eastern Etruscans being depicted as “black-haired, dark-skinned, *bearded* and long-nosed, and actually more Semitic than Anatolian or Caucasian in looks.” Since I supposed we were making distinctions between the allegedly Northern aristocracy and the allegedly Southern commoners, I did take that to mean that there was somehow a cultural difference in that respect – Etruscans (commoners) having beards, “Italics” or whatever were the “original” Romans, not having beards. Anyways, this is clear though what is not clear is what I pointed out above.

----------


## ebAmerican

Yetos is absolutely correct concerning modern and ancient definitions of terminology. The word aristocrat, king, slave, et. in ancient times didn't have the same meaning as they did in middle ages or modern times. The idea of King as an absolute monarch is a Christianized meaning during medieval times. When Romans and Greeks speak of Rex or Celtic Rix it's describing a paramount magistrate elected by a council of elders or free men (commoners) to conduct war. In times of war (great stress) a general needed to be appointed who had complete authority over the action. A king in ancient times would be more similar to a 4 star general in the US military. The council of elders and priestly caste made all the social rules. Because ancient society was highly ritualized and superstitious the priestly class held tremendous power over every day life. The meaning of ethnicity wasn't as black and white (no pun intended) as it is today. If you worshiped and followed the same rituals you were part of the ethnic group. Many commoners would be asked to leave a city-state and create a colony. Those commoners lucky enough to be the founding fathers of the new colony were the new elite. Social system was first come first served. The aristocrats of Rome were part of the supposedly founding families of Rome. Romulus and Remus were probably simple shepherds that lived with their families prior to Rome becoming a military significance in 750bc. There is archeological evidence showing that Rome before 750bc had a small settlement of substance farming and herding people.

----------


## spongetaro

The patricians were probably more mixed with the Etruscan thans the plebeians since the Etruscans once ruled Rome.
As for the slaves in Rome, hundred of thousands of them were Celts (after the Gallic wars) and Germans.

----------


## ebAmerican

I seriously doubt that or Rome would of spoke Etruscan and not Latin. Plus, the patrician names would be slanted towards Etruscan and they are Latin. Rome (Latins) threw off Etruscan occupation from Etruscan war lords (Kings), but the people and those who ruled the republic were Latins (Italics the beloved cousins of the Celts, lol). The Etruscan Kings were given Latinized names from future historians. I don't believe any actual name of an Etruscan King of Rome has been found engraved or written before 509bc. I could be wrong.

----------


## ebAmerican

I just read on Wiki that only the last three kings were of Etruscan origin. The first four were Sabine and Latin I'm guessing.

----------


## Yetos

*Shaving and beards in ancient Greece.*

Shaving is considered a Messopotamian habbit, 
shaving is considered a kind of mourning.

from homer we know that at a case of Death 
Girls cut their hair
Men shave their bear
relatives put ashes in their head.

today we wear a black tie but not that time,

So 
Philoshophers who are not connected with Death or war they should be shaved,
Gods is another case 
Zeus Poseidon Hephaistos have bearb But Apollo Hermes and Ares (Mars) don't
Why?
the answer is also in many other statues, floor pictures etc 
Alexander also has no beard,
Leonidas also had no beard
Why?
cause man who had to fight in a battle should prepaire their boddies
so they do mainly 3 things 
1 dance and drink before the travel to battlefield
2 wash and shave the night before battle, 
THEY SHOULD be prepair for death, and go clean to underworld.
3 in some cities we also see the prepairation of hair, a pigtail (the word is πλεξις Or κοτσος). 
the pig-tail in case of death was cut by a compagnion and send to relatives, especially the mother. 

So beard is common among philoshophers, some gods, politicians etc, but it is uncommon in soldiers 

remember that shaving was a mourning culture in ancient world, that pass today through military believes mainly.

So Apollo is also something arc-angel Michael. He has the right to kill, especially women so he brings mourn
Hermes is ψυχοπομπος, consider it as courier organiser to underworld, he holds the caduceus
Ares (mars) is god god of war, so master of massive mourning,
these gods could not have beard, 

Yet we see beard in some warriors, like King Phillip, Alkibiades 

well here are special cases, which personally I don't know, 
for example in Alkiaviades we see the bellow







It seems like after a big danger in a battle Δηλιο 424 BC, or after entering the political, or after finishing a philoshophy school or lvl, (student of socrates) they grew beard,
But I am certain about the connection among shaving and mourning.


Phillip the B 

No Beard



Phillip B with Beard

----------


## julia90

italics were not scandinavians, but they could be more similar with celts than with neolithic mediterranean people that were more ancient in italy


some wiki infos

During Copper Age, at the same time of the appearance of metalwork, Indo-European people migrated to Italy. Approximatively four waves of population from north to the Alps have been identified by archeological evidence:

Around the mid-3rd millennium BC, from populations who imported copper smithing. The Remedello culture (ca. 3400 - 2800 BC) took over the Po Valley.From late-3rd to early-2nd millennium BC, with tribes coming both from the north and from the Franco-iberian area identified with the Beaker culture(ca. 2400 – 1800 BC[2]) and by the use of bronze smithing, in the Padan Plain, in Tuscany and on the coasts of Sardinia and Sicily.In the mid-2nd millennium BC, associated with the Terramare culture (ca. 1700-1150 BC.[3]). The Terramare culture takes its name from the black earth (terremare) residue of settlement mounds, which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers. The occupations of the terramare people as compared with their Neolithic predecessors may be inferred with comparative certainty. They were still hunters, but had domesticated animals; they were fairly skillful metallurgists, casting bronze in moulds of stone and clay, and they were also agriculturists, cultivating beans, the vine, wheat and flax. The later Latino-faliscan people have been associated with this culture.From the late 2nd millennium to the early 1st millennium BC, the Iron Age Proto-villanovan culture (ca. 1100 - 900 BC), related to the Central EuropeanUrnfield culture, brought iron-working to the Italian peninsula. Proto-villanovans practiced cremation and buried the ashes of their dead in pottery urns of distinctive double-cone shape. Generally speaking, Proto-villanovan settlements has been found in almost all the Italian peninsula from Veneto to eastern Sicily (Milazzo), although they were most numerous in the northern-central part of Italy. The most important settlement excavated are those of Frattesina in Veneto region, Bismantova in Emilia-Romagna and near the Monti della Tolfa, north of Rome . 
Villanovan Culture in 900 BC
InCampania, a region where inhumation was the general practice, proto-villanovan cremation burials have been identified at Capua, at the "princely tombs" of Pontecagnano near Salerno (finds conserved in the Museum ofAgro Picentino) and at Sala Consilina. The later Osco-Umbrian, Veneti (and possibly the Latino-Faliscans too) have been associated with this culture. In Tuscany and in part of Emilia-Romagna the proto-villanovan culture was followed by the Villanovan Culture, often associated with the non-indoeuropean Etruscans.In the 13th century BC proto-Celts (probably the ancestors of the Lepontii people) coming from the area of modern day Switzerland, eastern France and south-western Germany entered in Northern Italy (Lombardyand eastern Piedmont) starting the Canegrate culture whom not long time after, merging with the indigenous, and originally Pre-Indo-European[_citation needed_], Ligurians, produced the mixed Golasecca culture.
About this time, Illyrians tribes migrated from the Balkan coasts to Apulia.

----------


## Maciamo

> Right I’m sorry. But why would that be? You repeat it below. That you expect ancient Romans to resemble Northern Italians (and even more the French and South Germans?!) as opposed to Central(?) or Southern Italians (?) _more closely (though not entirely)_. But why that would be?


First of all, I did not mention modern Italians. I wrote that these specific ancient Romans looked more French/South German than Greek, Anatolian, Levantine or Arabic. Greek might include South Italians, but I certainly did not mention Central Italy. The region is such a genetic melting pot that I prefer to avoid it for comparisons. If you try to determine whether the Romans, and their descendants the Italians, are more genetically Indo-European (Italo-Celtic) or pre-IE Middle Eastern, what good does it make to say that the ancient resembles the modern population ? It's kind of obvious. The discussion is about the origins of the ancient population, not trying to confirm the connection between ancient Romans and modern Central Italians.


Secondly, I am not _expecting_ these ancient Romans to look more like the North Italians or the French, it is what I observe from the ancient sculptures. Here is a little collage of famous ancient Roman faces from the 1st century BCE and CE. Note that Caligula's bust was recolourised using the original pigments, so we know exactly what his skin, hair and eye colours were like. Augustus was described as having "bright eyes" (meaning light coloured), with hair that was slightly curly and inclining to golden (so dark blond or light brown, which is lighter than most French or even South German male adults). I added Virgil, who was from Cisalpine Gaul (northern Italy) as a comparison with old Roman families of the same period. Virgil's physical type matches perfectly that of the Julian dynasty. 



Note that none of them have the long, prominent nose often described as "Italian nose" (more common in the south), nor the tall "Greek nose" that descends straight from the forehead without curving. These "Classical Romans" have a relatively small and short nose. They also have a characteristic V-shape face, with a receding (and often cleft) chin. Their hair is brown and wavy, like in central Europe, not black and curly like in the Middle East and North Africa, nor black and straight like in Iberia (esp. Basques). 




> Got it. Again, same question as above arises. How do we know that the Mycenaeans belonged to R1b and/or R1a? you don’t have to type an answer yourself btw. I am happy to read any papers.


So far no Y-DNA has been tested from ancient Mycenaeans, but there is ample archaeological evidence linking Mycenaean culture with that of the Pontic steppes (kurgan graves, chariots, similar metalworks and pottery contrasting a lot with Neolithic Greece). There is little doubt that the Mycenaeans originated from the steppes. If archaeology isn't enough, Mycenaean language is clearly Indo-European, the first IE language in Greece.





> Right, I misunderstood you though I don’t think C. Greeks were nearly as mixed as M. Greeks because the latter have received waves of Vlachs, Arvanites, Franks, Venetians, etc which mixed with the local population during and after the period of the Eastern Roman Empire (the atrociously named "Byzantine" Empire). The so-called “gasmouloi” in the Morea during the Latin occupation were the result of Franks and Greeks intermarrying (usually Frankish men and Greek women). Also, Sally McKee (in her ‘Uncommon Dominion’), says that intermarriages (Greek and Venetian) were common among the nobles and even more common among the commoners in Venetian Crete (especially much later when the original Venetian families had basically become...’Cretanised’).
> Anyways, this is a huge issue in itself and I need not worry about that now.


Obviously modern Greeks are more mixed than Classical Greeks. Genetic admixtures normally always increase over time (unless there is a complete population replacement or bottleneck, but that wasn't the case).




> There was a peculiar sentence about the middle eastern Etruscans being depicted as “black-haired, dark-skinned, *bearded* and long-nosed, and actually more Semitic than Anatolian or Caucasian in looks.” Since I supposed we were making distinctions between the allegedly Northern aristocracy and the allegedly Southern commoners, I did take that to mean that there was somehow a cultural difference in that respect – Etruscans (commoners) having beards, “Italics” or whatever were the “original” Romans, not having beards. Anyways, this is clear though what is not clear is what I pointed out above.


That was your assumption. Etruscans were composed of both aristocrats and commoners, but people depicted in arts are usually aristocrats. Etruscans are pre-Indo-European, and the fact that they had dark skin, black hair and curly hair, like modern population mostly lacking Indo-European admixture (Sardinians, Saudi, Yemeni) is just a confirmation that light pigmentation was indeed brought to central, southern and western Europe by the Indo-Europeans (from north-eastern Europe). If the Romans had light skin, brown, blond or reddish hair, and light eyes (and we know they did), then they must have had a considerable amount of Indo-European blood - probably more than 50%, since light pigmentation is recessive and disappears quickly when mixed with people who lack those genes. Haplogroup R1b is the one associated with the (Indo-European) Italic people. Nowadays it is only dominant (over 50%) in northern Italy, and is close to 50% in the Latium. I expect that the ancient Italic tribes, including the Romans, had over 80% of R1b before mixing with the Etruscans or other non-IE neighbours. The free citizens of Rome at the time of Augustus must still have had at least 60% of R1b. I would think that modern Romans are a little bit darker in complexion, and a bit further away from the Celto-Italic type, due the influx of non-Celtic (or Germanic) immigrants to Rome from the 1st to the 5th century.

----------


## Malsori

I don't think R1b are Proto Indo-European or early Indo-Europeans. I mean only a subclade of R1b be as late Indo-Europeans that of R1b-U106 who were Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe where we see the mingling of Bell Beakers and Corded Wares and which group played a role in Indo-Europeanizing Western Europe. 

Moreover light pigmentation doesn't originally come from R1 carriers. They are bronze age invaders, firstly R1a from Pontic-Caspian steppes who were West Asian/West Central Asians and Mesolithic European in ancestry and R1b from East Anatolia. It is obvious that through sexual selection( choosing lighter North European females) light pigmentation became frequent among them.

----------


## Cato

> The commoners were tribes original to the South whereas the aristocracy was comprised of Northern invaders. Northern not as in Northern Greece or Italy but as in Northern Europe - say, Scandinavia. These two groups did not, at the time, intermingle. They were two separate ethnic groups living in the same geographical area and being very aware of their ethnic differences ("we [the aristocrats] not only think differently than you [the commoners] do because of our culture, we also look different, very different, from you")
> "


the Latins arrived in Italy about 1100 BC , their original homeland was in southern-central Europe rather than Scandinavia. According to Kristian Kristiansen the "italic urheimat" was probably in Austria and western Hungary (Europe before history pg.388)

According with the old anthropological data in Latium there are two main physical types , 1) Dolicocephalic mediterranean with dark eyes and hair 2) brachycephalic type with higher stature and light eyes and hair 

One can believe that the first type represent the original inhabitants of Latium while the second type the indoeuropean invaders but i think that the question is far more complex

----------


## Cato

here are some pigmentation data about modern romans 

Men from _Ridolfo Livi - Antropometria militare
_
hair: blond 6,4% , red 0,8% , black 32% , brown 60,8 
eyes: blue 8,3% , gray (and green) 17,9% , black 9% , brown 73,8%

Women from _Maria Montessori - Caratteri fisici delle giovani donne del Lazio

_hair: blond 13% ,brown 37% , black 50%
eyes: dark 85% light 15%

IMO ancient romans weren't much lighter or darker than moderns

----------


## Maciamo

> here are some pigmentation data about modern romans 
> 
> Men from _Ridolfo Livi - Antropometria militare
> _
> hair: blond 6,4% , red 0,8% , black 32% , brown 60,8 
> eyes: blue 8,3% , gray (and green) 17,9% , black 9% , brown 73,8%
> 
> Women from _Maria Montessori - Caratteri fisici delle giovani donne del Lazio
> 
> ...


Thanks for the statistics. The questions when referring to "the ancient Romans" are : 

1) *Where ?* Are we talking about the city of Rome, all the Latium, all Italy, or the Roman Empire ?
2) *When ?* Populations evolve with time. The citizenry of Rome in 500 BCE, 50 BCE, 200 CE and 500 CE would have been quite different.
3 *What Romans ?* Are we talking about "stock Romans" (old families), all Roman citizens, or also recent immigrants and slaves ? Nowadays Romans say that your family needs to have lived in Rome for 7 generations to be considered a true Roman. That's about 200 years. 

In this thread I have been targeting very specifically old Roman families (so only citizens, and even patricians more than plebeians) living roughly between 100 BCE and 50 CE in the city of Rome. If we are talking about the entire population of Central Italy towards the end of the Roman Empire, the picture would look utterly different, and probably much closer to the modern population.

----------


## MOESAN

> I don't think R1b are Proto Indo-European or early Indo-Europeans. I mean only a subclade of R1b be as late Indo-Europeans that of R1b-U106 who were Indo-Europeanized in Central Europe where we see the mingling of Bell Beakers and Corded Wares and which group played a role in Indo-Europeanizing Western Europe. 
> 
> Moreover light pigmentation doesn't originally come from R1 carriers. They are bronze age invaders, firstly R1a from Pontic-Caspian steppes who were West Asian/West Central Asians and Mesolithic European in ancestry and R1b from East Anatolia. It is obvious that through sexual selection( choosing lighter North European females) light pigmentation became frequent among them.


just one of my thoughts:
concerning depigmentation, I believe it can have occurred in Eastern Europe-Western Siberia and not by obligation in Northern Europe - I have no opinion because I have not the smallest proof concerning the pigmentation of the PREVIOUS Y-R1b bearers (before they, maybe, drown their autosomals in "seas" of other groups females, by the bias of elite male domination, proposition of Maciamo) BUT I just recall you that surely a lot of the Y-R1b settled a long time in Eastern Europe or Western Siberia too, as some of the Y-R1a bearers (not by force in the same places at the same times, of course) -
if we concentrate only around pigmentation, it is almost sure that Romans and other Italic patricians (nobles) was very mixed in pigmentation, showing even some red haired people even if rarest than among Celts, the recordmen for that (and not the Germanics) -I recall that there is not something as a simple opposition more and more light vs more and more dark, but different genes coding different lightness or darkness, and several ligneages, no simplistic binary opposition - 
COON, Gods save his soul, said that among the Roman nobility he remarked dolicho 'mediterraneans' (too imprecise), dolicho 'nordics', brachy 'dinarics' - I add that surely brachy 'alpines' was present, as they was dominant in Pompei under the ashes nad are today the firts element among modern Italians as a whole (not in Sardinia, sure!!!)... Even if COON is not my gooroo, I have some confidence in these affirmations: Italic, after separation from Celts, stayed I believe longer in central Europe as say someones here, I suppose between SE-Austria, S-Hungary and N-Croatia: it makes sense according to linguistics and archeology... so the 'dinaric' element is not surprising - I add this phenotype whatever the Y-HGs attached to it, was present in N-E and E-Italy since the 2000 BC (bronze), came from the Balkans by land (what culture, these first ones? I-E yet??? ) what is sure is that they was not parto of the first ligneages of the pre-Ligurians of N-W Italy-
maybe these first 'dinarics' (mixed with others in a mixture that was typicla to central Balkans) was accointed to some ancestors of the I-E Dorians Greeks?

----------


## MOESAN

> here are some pigmentation data about modern romans 
> 
> Men from _Ridolfo Livi - Antropometria militare
> _
> hair: blond 6,4% , red 0,8% , black 32% , brown 60,8 
> eyes: blue 8,3% , gray (and green) 17,9% , black 9% , brown 73,8%
> 
> Women from _Maria Montessori - Caratteri fisici delle giovani donne del Lazio
> 
> ...


I do not disagree too much: even if I believe first patricians was a bit lighter than modern days Romans or Lazzio people - (_the 13% of blond females in Lazzio seams to me too high, indeed -today Lazzio people are a bit darker than the italian mean but you know a whole country mean is always very uncertain: surveys are not taking in count the density of population by regions: I found 8% of blond hairs among Italians, for the North is more populated than the South nowadays -_ 
just a detail (technical) Livi was very close to truth about light pigmentation, and his regional %s are very good - but he failed to discrimine among middle and "light" dark pigmentation, for eyes like for hair - just a detail - 
all the way, I think Maciamo want to show that first Italic elites was different enough from the present day Southern Italians (the most of the outwards emigrees, gaving an "Epinal" false image of all Italians that are far of being all on the same model) -

----------


## Cato

> I do not disagree too much: even if I believe first patricians was a bit lighter than modern days Romans or Lazzio people - (_the 13% of blond females in Lazzio seams to me too high, indeed -today Lazzio people are a bit darker than the italian mean but you know a whole country mean is always very uncertain: surveys are not taking in count the density of population by regions: I found 8% of blond hairs among Italians, for the North is more populated than the South nowadays -_ 
> just a detail (technical) Livi was very close to truth about light pigmentation, and his regional %s are very good - but he failed to discrimine among middle and "light" dark pigmentation, for eyes like for hair - just a detail - 
> all the way, I think Maciamo want to show that first Italic elites was different enough from the present day Southern Italians (the most of the outwards emigrees, gaving an "Epinal" false image of all Italians that are far of being all on the same model) -


probably early italics were lighter before they mixed with the indigenous population considering that they were a north alpine folk most were of light or intermediate pigmentation with a minority of dark individuals (as today "middle-danubian" people like Austrians,Hungarians etc.) , anyway are we sure that the patrician class was composed only by the indoeuropean-urnfield invaders ? or by both indoeuropean and "indoeuropeizated"-indigenous , i'm saying this because when the urnfield culture (called proto-villanovan) appeared in Latium replacing the Apennine culture at first there wasn't much social stratification , it appear later as the distinction between patricians and plebeians , the patricians were merely the original inhabitants of Rome founded in the VIII century b.C. (about three-four century after the latin immigration south of the alps) and the original inhabitants of Rome were very probably both "urnfields" and "apennine" people.

ps. regarding the % of dark eyes among men ,73,8% include the 9% of "black eyed"-individuals ..so summarizing light eyes 26,2% , dark eyes 73,8% . As other studies show generally in Europe women are more light-haired than men but at the same time more dark-eyed.

----------


## Cato

> I have some confidence in these affirmations: Italic, after separation from Celts, stayed I believe longer in central Europe as say someones here, I suppose between SE-Austria, S-Hungary and N-Croatia: it makes sense according to linguistics and archeology...


according to Marija Gimbutas : "_In the middle-Danube area , in northern Yugoslavia , Hungary , Austria , western Slovakia and southern Moravia , this is the Caka or early Velatice phase of the middle Danube group . In it we find the the largest numbers of best parallels for all the bronzes found in Greece , Italy , and east Mediterranean_" (Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe )

Even the Dorian migration is linked with expansion of this particular urnfield group...my guess is that the Dorians were originally not-Greeks , rather Illyrians or similar to Italics.

----------


## Yetos

> according to Marija Gimbutas : "_In the middle-Danube area , in northern Yugoslavia , Hungary , Austria , western Slovakia and southern Moravia , this is the Caka or early Velatice phase of the middle Danube group . In it we find the the largest numbers of best parallels for all the bronzes found in Greece , Italy , and east Mediterranean_" (Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe )
> 
> Even the Dorian migration is linked with expansion of this particular urnfield group...my guess is that the Dorians were originally not-Greeks , rather Illyrians or similar to Italics.


That is the problem

1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper, 
Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.

2) The dorians, 
the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians, 
Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria, 
their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες, 
Trikke exist in Greece in land of Graioi (Greeks) in Dacia in Baltic, 
The dorians is connected with iron age, that is why is put 1100 900 BCE and especially a kind of more flexible iron,
if you read the post about χαλυβες iron age exist in Greece from 1150 BC and entered from Lydia not from Danube, 

Gibutas theory although fits in North does not fit in Greece, low Balkans (Thracians-Illyricum) and west parts of Minor Asia, 

the only possible migration from Central Europe is the R1a that happened at about 3500 BC and still this is under discuss cause Balkans might be the starting point of R1a due to high diversity, althoiugh diversity might be from many migrations, remnants in a sink.

Mt Pelion (Old mountain in translation) has maybe the oldest iron mines in area, 

Mt Aimos still is one of the most iron deposits in the world.

----------


## zanipolo

> That is the problem
> 
> 1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper, 
> Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.
> 
> 2) The dorians, 
> the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians, 
> Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria, 
> their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες, 
> ...


If the dorians came in the iron age and we know the mycenians where in the bronze age, where does the ionians and aetolians fit in?
BTW , what haplogroup where the Mycenians and dorians ........this would be interesting

----------


## Yetos

> If the dorians came in the iron age and we know the mycenians where in the bronze age, where does the ionians and aetolians fit in?
> BTW , what haplogroup where the Mycenians and dorians ........this would be interesting


It is not for me to decide, 
Archaiologists prove that, 
Dorians came after the destruction of Mycenae by sea peoples, 

Dorians is an exonyme given to them by the city of Doris,

their arrival is mainly placed at *911 BC* according the archaological data, 
the story of Dorians is mentioned also the RETURN OF TEMENIDES.
in Sparta the head capital of Dorians we see that, 2 Kings from 2 different generations, 

Now Aeolians and Dorians seems to be what was called Γραιοι or thettalians in forum 
Achaians seems to be the remnants of Myceneans since we see a movement of the last to North and west, 
Ionians is considered the mix of Greek+Pelasgians

Trikke is modern Trikkala, city next to Aigae from where also Makedonians origin
that is why I believe that Dorians and Aeolians probably were R1a and myceneans and Ionians R1b 

the Dorian descend marks 3 things 
1) the advanced iron Metallurgy 
2) the return to geometrical forms and black pottery (painted) 
3) the start of what we call archaic Greek, the end of Homeric which is considered closer to Greco-Aryan (LPIE)

besides parallel of the descend of Dorians we also see the Aeolian expansion to Pelasgian argos 

and 2 centuries later the back road of Karamos to Makedonia

Dorian invasion is after Troyan war and at least 700 years after the proto-Myceneans

What i want to say is wrong to claim Dorian invasion in Kurgan hypothesis since centuries before IE existed in Greece with proves.


we might go off topic if I expand more.

Ionians are connected with the non Minoan Greco-Pelasgian lands the middle zone in Aegean
Dorians also occupied the Minoan-Pelasgian zone, 
While Aeolians try to take the North part of Pelasgians until Troy 
Achaians shrunk to peloponese and moved to colonies mainly S Italy

Remember that the Northern part of what we call Greek tribes is Ellimians, and north of them Bryges, Ellimians become 2 centuries later the Makedonians

----------


## Maciamo

> 1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper, 
> Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.


The Chalcolithic (Copper Age) is not the same as the Bronze Age. The Chalcolithic is usually associated to the late Neolithic.

The oldest known Bronze Age culture is the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, which started circa 3700 BCE. The second oldest is the Yamna culture in the Pontic steppes, starting around 3500 BCE. In contrast, the Bronze Age only started from 3100 BCE in Egypt, 2900 BCE in Mesopotamia, and 2500 BCE in Anatolia (Hattians). By that time the Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2950-2500 BCE) had already spread all the way to northern Russia, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland. 

The situation in Greece is less clear-cut. The earliest Greek bronze age culture was the Cycladic civilization, which started around 3000 BCE, but, as its name suggests, was confined to the islands, not mainland Greece. Even so, the Aegean Bronze Age began only around 2700 BCE in Minoan Crete.

----------


## Boss

You guys have deviated too much from the original topic (re-read OP!).

Anyways, thanks for the info (especially Maciamo for his sig and discussion). I have much reading to do before I can get a clear picture of genetics (I didn't even know what autosomal DNA was until very recently).

----------


## Yetos

> The Chalcolithic (Copper Age) is not the same as the Bronze Age. The Chalcolithic is usually associated to the late Neolithic.
> 
> The oldest known Bronze Age culture is the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus, which started circa 3700 BCE. The second oldest is the Yamna culture in the Pontic steppes, starting around 3500 BCE. In contrast, the Bronze Age only started from 3100 BCE in Egypt, 2900 BCE in Mesopotamia, and 2500 BCE in Anatolia (Hattians). By that time the Indo-European Corded Ware culture (2950-2500 BCE) had already spread all the way to northern Russia, Scandinavia, Germany and Poland. 
> 
> The situation in Greece is less clear-cut. The earliest Greek bronze age culture was the Cycladic civilization, which started around 3000 BCE, but, as its name suggests, was confined to the islands, not mainland Greece. Even so, the Aegean Bronze Age began only around 2700 BCE in Minoan Crete.


That is the BIG DIFFERENCE 

1) MAYKOP BRONZE IS AN ARSENIC BRONZE

You are right 
Chalkolithic era is early copper 
Bronze is when mettalurgy started to mix copper with other metals
Ορειχαλκος In Greek, 
(could it mean Ur's copper? or Eri(du)copper?)
(Ερις -δος is the goddess of anger-nerves-hate-and fight)
( or is just ore-oro+copper)

BUT THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE AMONG MAYKOP AND Near East-Balkanic bronze 
Maykop uses arsenic to produce Bronze, while in Near east-Balkans tin is used, 

so except the burrial customs the metallurgy is different, 
We can not combine 'Maykop' bronze with 'Cyprus' bronze 

In Serbia we find tin+copper bronze at 3000 BC which is not Maykop bronze, 

2) Maykop culture is an Eridu culture 

Maykop - Leyla Tepe - Eridu culrures are connected,
Maykop is an expansion - a colony of Eridu
which again sends us to around Kurdistan-Armenia-Akkadia
Ur+Zagros mountains 
That again sends Maykop back to Near-middle East origin, and not to steppe


So although Kurgan until today might be correct at tumulus roads, It is not in Bronze roads 
cause in Balkans we find Copper+Tin (even British tin is found in Crete)
while in Maykop and steppe we find Arsenic+copper 
so bronze technology gives another road.

Besides the archaiological evidences of Leyla-Tepe at 80's are connecting Maykop with Middle east and not with Adygean and Steppe, that means that Maykop could speak IE due to the origin and relativity of Maykop people, that again sends us back to minor asia as Starting point of IE.

----------


## Maciamo

> BUT THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE AMONG MAYKOP AND Near East-Balkanic bronze 
> Maykop uses arsenic to produce Bronze, while in Near east-Balkans tin is used,


The Maykop culture developed the earliest type of bronze, and it was indeed made with arsenic instead of tin, because of the paucity of tin in the North Caucasus. Nevertheless, bronze made of copper and tin was used in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, both descended from the Yamna and probably (at least partially) Maykop cultures. So there is a good chance that it is the same people who also invented tin bronze.

I don't think it is a coincidence that all the ancient tin mining sites in Europe (South Germany, North Italy, and the Atlantic fringe) are now regions where haplogroup R1b is the dominant haplogroup. I have hypothesised since 2008 that the success of the Indo-European expansion from the steppe, and the presence dominance of haplogroups R1b and R1a from Western Europe to South Asia, was due to the fact that they were the first to develop bronze weapons, which were vastly more effective than stone or copper weapons. Another reason was that were also the first to ride horses for military and use them for transport purposes, which was the prehistoric equivalent of having tanks and trucks (as opposed to nothing).




> In Serbia we find tin+copper bronze at 3000 BC which is not Maykop bronze


Do you know which site it was, or which culture it belonged to ?




> 2) Maykop culture is an Eridu culture 
> 
> Maykop - Leyla Tepe - Eridu culrures are connected,
> Maykop is an expansion - a colony of Eridu
> which again sends us to around Kurdistan-Armenia-Akkadia
> Ur+Zagros mountains 
> That again sends Maykop back to Near-middle East origin, and not to steppe


It is very possible that the Maykop culture was an expansion of the Caucasian Leyla Tepe culture, and that it itself had originated in Mesopotamia. Actually if your read my older posts on this forum you will see that I have always placed the Mesolithic and early Neolithic origins of R1b in the Middle East. I have even linked the Gedrosian autosomal admixture in Europeans to the Middle Eastern origins of R1b.

The way I see it is that R1b people roamed most of the Middle East as hunter-gatherers until the end of the last Ice Age, then became some of the first people to settle down, make pottery and domesticate animals (especially cows and sheep), and perhaps do some basic agriculture. These R1b people who have migrated to the North Caucasus with their herds in search of pastures, probably mixing with G2a people from the Caucasus on the way, and founding the Maykop culture. They would quickly expand to the north-west and north-east to the Pontic and Caspian steppes, mixing to a limited extend with the indigenous R1a people. 

Both groups would remain mostly separate though, R1b occupying especially the north of the Black Sea, then expanding to the Balkans and Central Europe; R1a occupying the forest-steppe from northern Ukraine to the Volga-Ural, then expanding to the Baltic and Central Asia. Both groups, however, had become part of a common, patriarchal and very hierarchical pastoralist culture, sharing one common PIE language, a common pottery style, a common burial style (kurgan/tumulus), and the same widespread use of horses and bronze technology. This was the Yamna culture, the source of the Indo-European culture and languages. The R1a people were indigenous to the region, but the R1b and G2a were not - they had come from the Middle East. This is what many people fail to understand, even some so-called "specialists" of Indo-European migrations and languages and some professional population geneticists. 

The rival theory is that PIE language and people expanded straight from Neolithic Anatolia to Europe and South Asia, without passing by the steppes. This view is seriously flawed in my eyes because:

1) it fails to explain how IE languages became associated with haplogroup R1a
2) it fails to explain how IE languages spread to Northeast Europe
3) it fails to explain the obvious archaeological dispersal of the Yamna culture to the Baltic and Central Europe (Corded ware), to Central Asia (Andronovo), then to Iran, Pakistan and India, thus also contradicting the Aryan invasion of India described in Hindu texts. 
4) a Neolithic dispersal of IE languages is in blatant contradiction with the fact that Neolithic and Chalcolithic Greece and Anatolia were non-IE, then suddenly became IE-speaking from the Mycenaean and Hittite invasions (both of whom had war chariots, first developed in the steppes).
5) the evolutionary tree of Indo-European languages matches far better the theory of a Bronze Age steppe dispersal than one from Neolithic Anatolia with agriculture. How else can we explain that the Baltic-Slavic branch is closer to the Indo-Iranian branch ?

----------


## Yetos

> The Maykop culture developed the earliest type of bronze, and it was indeed made with arsenic instead of tin, because of the paucity of tin in the North Caucasus. Nevertheless, bronze made of copper and tin was used in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, both descended from the Yamna and probably (at least partially) Maykop cultures. So there is a good chance that it is the same people who also invented tin bronze.
> 
> I don't think it is a coincidence that all the ancient tin mining sites in Europe (South Germany, North Italy, and the Atlantic fringe) are now regions where haplogroup R1b is the dominant haplogroup. I have hypothesised since 2008 that the success of the Indo-European expansion from the steppe, and the presence dominance of haplogroups R1b and R1a from Western Europe to South Asia, was due to the fact that they were the first to develop bronze weapons, which were vastly more effective than stone or copper weapons. Another reason was that were also the first to ride horses for military and use them for transport purposes, which was the prehistoric equivalent of having tanks and trucks (as opposed to nothing).
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which site it was, or which culture it belonged to ?
> 
> 
> ...


hmmm 

to 1) I will not answer now cause R1a is another story, only alone it can be IE

2 and 5 is easy 
from Iranian-Persian population, 
Scythians and Ros (Varragians) and from later Cyrillic in churches and schools
3) no answer from me yet
4) Myceneans means seed 'muca', 
as also my ko no the mu people's city the my and mu = human (mycenae myssia moessia moschoi all connected with mu)
but as 'muca' means farmers-seed gatherers and is simmlar to what we could say minor Asian (Greco-Aryan Greco-Armenian) languages

may i ask one question?
how do explain the existance of common words among Akkadians and Greeks and even more among Akkadians and North west IE 
for some it is estimated 16 000 to greek and 8 000 to north-west Europe
while Uraloid words are rare to these languages,
if Ie came from North why they spead so little Uraloid vocabulary?

on the other hand how we can explain the connection among Greek and Sanshqrit if in Both, if IE came from North and not from a common center that connects them to a proto-formation?


Now about the source, 

There is a book by an archaiologist Lyritzis Taylor or something like that 
that describes the mettalurgy Bronze Balkans and minor Asia was made by Cyprus copper and Serbian cassiterie (tin) estimation even to 3000 -3300 BC 
now in Vucedol (Vukovar-Syrmia) we find arsenic Bronze while in lower Morava valley and Vranja we find cassiterian Bronze simmilar to Aegean and early Mycenean,
It seems that Vucedol is the last arsenic bronze culture, 
Yet significant is that in Vucedol we find Minoan axes !!!!!!

It would interesting to find the kind of Bronze of Cotofeni and of Vatin 

the presence of Minoan axes and the twin culture of Vatin as also that the possible turn from Arsenic to Tin seems to be in that area, 
In fact these are the areas with low R1b, south and west of these R1b grow while east of them R1b drops and r1a gets raise

my personal thought is that R1b in basquez is not IE speaking
R1a in Caucas is not IE speaking and huge R1a are not connected with IE
so I tend to believe that Otzi spoke an early agricultural IE while a second wave of IEpeans or semi IE pass and a thrid came at iron age and global small ice age of 1000-600 BC (the reverse road of DNA) 
I am confused in that only R1a can explain IE and R1a could not even IE but get IEnised.

I must agree that your thoughts are indeed checked. 
But still I am not conviced by Kurgan Hypothesis, mainly due to linguistic.

You may accuse me Greco-anatolian-Centric, I take peals to cure it  :Rolleyes: 
but seems all theories have a good and correct point and 1 weak, 

I mean if Maykop spoke IE from Zagros mountains or Nort-West Iran and IEnize R1a and R1b? Caucasus and Gedrosian component?
that fits with linguistic of Indo-Hettit theory I think (not certain)

Thank you I spend an evening trying to analyze and combine theories.

----------


## spongetaro

In David Anthony's book, it is nowhere written that:

1) Maykop was Indo European (Actually he thinks that Caucasian borrowings into proto IE occured with the contacts between Maykop and Yamnaya).

2) Maykop took part in the formation of Yamnaya.

3) Maykop people migrated to the Steppe.

----------


## Cato

> That is the problem
> 
> 1) The bronze age in Greece is not after North but after Cyprus, Cyprus means Copper, 
> Greece enter chalkolithic era before rest of Europe due to Invsion from cyprus.
> 
> 2) The dorians, 
> the geometrical features as also the black painting existed in Greece much before dorians, 
> Dorians are considered to enter from Danube or Illyria, 
> their origin is Trikke Δωριεις Τριχακες, 
> ...


I didn't said that Dorians introduced bronze and iron in Greece but that since 1300-1200 b.C. there was in Greece an increase of swords , fibulas etc. of Central European origin , also of central European origin (Urnfield culture) is the rite of burning the deads. These new features were likely introduced by people who came from the north and *may* (experts are not 100% sure about this link) these people were the ancestors of the Dorians..

----------


## Maciamo

> In David Anthony's book, it is nowhere written that:
> 
> 1) Maykop was Indo European (Actually he thinks that Caucasian borrowings into proto IE occured with the contacts between Maykop and Yamnaya).
> 
> 2) Maykop took part in the formation of Yamnaya.
> 
> 3) Maykop people migrated to the Steppe.


That's because the book is about steppe culture, not about Maykop and the North Caucasus. However it does say that there were steppe-style kurgans in Maykop and that the pottery of Maykop and the Dnieper-Don culture were very similar (or was it in another book I read ? Sometimes it's hard to remember where some info comes from).

I admit being the first one linking the Maykop culture to the Indo-Europeans (and haplogroup R1b). I have explained why above.

----------


## Yetos

> I didn't said that Dorians introduced bronze and iron in Greece but that since 1300-1200 b.C. there was in Greece an increase of swords , fibulas etc. of Central European origin , also of central European origin (Urnfield culture) is the rite of burning the deads. These new features were likely introduced by people who came from the north and *may* (experts are not 100% sure about this link) these people were the ancestors of the Dorians..


the Myceneans are much older than Dorians in Greece, Myceneans are connected with Central europe, Cyprus, and south West minor Asia, and are parallel with Minoans, and as achaians we find them from South Italy up to Adriatic sea,

with Dorian simply we find a restart after sea paoples and are not Central European.

----------


## Yetos

> That's because the book is about steppe culture, not about Maykop and the North Caucasus. However it does say that there were steppe-style kurgans in Maykop and that the pottery of Maykop and the Dnieper-Don culture were very similar (or was it in another book I read ? Sometimes it's hard to remember where some info comes from).
> 
> I admit being the first one linking the Maykop culture to the Indo-Europeans (and haplogroup R1b). I have explained why above.



an interesting argue for that is burial system of North Iran and zoroastrian culture, 
Zoroastrians or Zaratustra's don't burry their dead, that custom is brought from India, they live them in top of the mountains. 
Also interesting is that in mountain cultures like Kallasha we see that people use coffins but burry them in coffins out in the air and not in the earth, 
so I wonder why in west steppe people create Kurgans, and not in the East steppe and India,
If steppe people took Maykop tomb system, or had developed Tomb system, why they spread it at west and not at East to India?

----------


## Dianatomia

Genetics does have a say on this matter. This research indicates that Ancient Greeks had less northern European ancestry compared to modern Greek mainlanders. I don't entirely agree with that assumption, because I think that there was genetic diversity in ancient Greece and it is logical to assume that Northern Greeks, even in ancient times, were more northern european than their southern counterparts. 

That said, in evaluating the historical demographics of Greece, it is logical to assume that the modern Greeks, if anything, should be slightly lighter that their ancient counterparts, rather than darker. Slavs, Venetians, Vlachs, Arvanites are lighter than the average Greek. So it is quite probable that the ancient Greeks had less R1a+ R1b+I. 

As for the Greek elites being lighter or darker. There is certainly no evidence pointing to that. In fact, all the evidence points to the contrary: 

-The remains of uncovered tombs of aristocrats or royal Greeks are not different compared to other Greeks. I.e. multiracial. 

-Extensive ancient Greek literature does not make any mention of the fact that elites where anthropologically different from the rest of the populations. In fact, literature points to the opposite. 

Also, some of you think that Myceneans where R1a or R1b people. Although they probably had some R1*, it is highly unlikely that they resembled northern Europeans. Paintings and art show that they were largerly Mediterranean people, and burials of Royal rombs in 1600 BC show a variety of stature and headform. 

http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/hellenes/

Furtermore, it is well known that Atheneans were largely Pelasgian (Pre-Greek). That is what they themselves believed.

Obviously, the indigenous population of Greece was more civilized and advanced compared to the later IE invaders and there is no evidence whatsover that the invaders dominated over the indigenous population. Instead, they mixed and gave Greece an extra genetic and cultural dimension. That which resulted to the Ancient Greek civilization. 

In no way however, was Ancient Greece more Northern European than Southern European. As C. Coon says, this is total ignorance of the Greek ethnic character.

----------


## Maciamo

> Genetics does have a say on this matter. This research indicates that Ancient Greeks had less northern European ancestry compared to modern Greek mainlanders. I don't entirely agree with that assumption, because I think that there was genetic diversity in ancient Greece and it is logical to assume that Northern Greeks, even in ancient times, were more northern european than their southern counterparts.
> 
> That said, in evaluating the historical demographics of Greece, it is logical to assume that the modern Greeks, if anything, should be slightly lighter that their ancient counterparts, rather than darker. Slavs, Venetians, Vlachs, Arvanites are lighter than the average Greek. So it is quite probable that the ancient Greeks had less R1a+ R1b+I.


That is a general phenomenon all over southern and central Europe, due to the Germanic and Slavic migrations. As I pointed out, the ancient Greeks, notably the upper classes depicted in art, looked considerably darker (very "Middle Eastern", almost "Semitic") than modern Greeks. The exception I noted is that of the Mycenaean ruling class, although this is an assumption based on the fact that their culture seemed imported from the steppes, not based on people depicted in Mycenaean art (there are very few people in Mycenaean art, and the traits are usually not realistic enough to judge what they really looked like). Only Mycenaean autosomal DNA could confirm this.




> -Extensive ancient Greek literature does not make any mention of the fact that elites where anthropologically different from the rest of the populations. In fact, literature points to the opposite.


Could you provide examples of texts pointing to this opposite ?




> Also, some of you think that Myceneans where R1a or R1b people. Although they probably had some R1*, it is highly unlikely that they resembled northern Europeans. Paintings and art show that they were largerly Mediterranean people, and burials of Royal rombs in 1600 BC show a variety of stature and headform.


What painting or art are you referring to ? The only ones I know show white-skinned women with black hair, though there is no way to know if they are indigenous Greeks or part of the foreign Mycenaean elite. Here are some examples:


(The "Lady of Mycenae", 13th century BCE)


(Mycenaean Woman, circa 1300 BCE, from Tiryns, Peloponnese)

The white skin is interesting because Minoan art from the same period often paint people either with white skin or with very dark skin, like this:


("Boxing children", circa 1600-1500 BCE, from Akrotiri in Santorini)

It is also interesting to note that the two dominant haplogroups in Crete nowadays are R1b and J2, so it could very well be that a white-skinned R1b population mixed with an older dark-skinned J2 population around the 2nd millennium BCE. It appears that circa 1500-1300 BCE, the two groups hadn't merged completely yet, and that both types could be found quite distinctly (unlike today).

The boundary between Mycenaean and Minoan art is not always clear though, as the two civilisations co-existed side by side, and it is sometimes impossible to be sure who painted the frescoes, and what ethnic group is being depicted. The Indo-Europeans were mostly male conquerors who took local wives, and the fact that women (mostly dancers) are the ones depicted in the art from this period doesn't tell us much about the male elite. Furthermore, if the Mycenaean rulers did take local wives, their descendants would have looked hybrid, then increasingly Greek. The Mycenaean civilisation spans 800 years. There are very good chances that the Mycenaean elite in 1900 BCE did not look anything like the one from 1100 BCE, or even 1500 BCE. Unfortunately I don't know of any Mycenaean art depicting the male elite from 1900 to 1800 BCE. That would be the most interesting for us.




> Obviously, the indigenous population of Greece was more civilized and advanced compared to the later IE invaders and there is no evidence whatsover that the invaders dominated over the indigenous population. Instead, they mixed and gave Greece an extra genetic and cultural dimension. That which resulted to the Ancient Greek civilization.


The Romans were more civilised and advanced than the Germanic and Slavic peoples. That did not prevent them from being conquered. 




> In no way however, was Ancient Greece more Northern European than Southern European. As C. Coon says, this is total ignorance of the Greek ethnic character.


Who ever said that in this thread ? The Romans maybe, but never the Greeks.

----------


## Yetos

hmmm

O inotice something today a Blog,

About the rulling Elite in Greece,

well from what we see at least in kings class or relatives, they always had a syptom, they always marry a woman from their elite, and mostly a relative, 
that keeps an elite character, but also low the chance to take foreign wifes,
so if the majority of myths say that the king was son of god or king, but marry a relative princess then we might have an elite but not a spread of population, 

Now about Mycenae 
19 skeletons were found in 6 royal tombs
the fantastic is that in tomp No5 a mummy was found, 
in the records the mummy was painted, photographed and put in mix of glue and alcool so to stabilize it, 
for many this mummy is lost,

the documents of Shleeman even had names, but today the mummy is probably lost of forgotten in a museum,
no matter what, 
a Genetist can ask to take cells from the Mycenean skeletons or from Makedonia's royal tomb, or many other tombs,
also in Athens did found skeltons and dentists manage to do a figurine of a small 12 years old girl,.
I don't know what it needs, but is easy to find to find the gennetics of Greeks no matter class cause differences among tombs probably mean class, 

But looking at Sindos tombs we do not see class, we see family tombs but all have quantities of gold burried, and we speak about thousands, something that is missing in slave-workers,

----------


## Boss

Partly why I don't like focusing on Mycenaean and Minoan periods is the lack of evidence.



This is the famous fresco of a Minoan Prince. Now what in the world am I supposed to conclude from it? we know so little about them, it's ridiculous. Nor do I think that taking features in isolation mean much (do Julius Caesar's "keenly" Black eyes mean he was a "Southerner"?)

But even in later Greece of which we know more:







Again, what am I to conclude from this? I'm referring to the associations people make with modern populations. I can find people looking like that (Plato's face is completely battered but anyways) in many places around Europe (and it's colonies).

Then there are people who look like this

in modern Greece (hair like that I don't think it's easy to find in modern Greece but the face in general). Now this is one of them famous Fayum portraits (many more on google) which, unlike other art, we know were meant to represent people like they were (the descendants of the Hellenistic-Ptolemaic ruling elite of Egypt). Problem is, these Greeks were either mixed with native Egyptian elites or were simply Hellenised Egyptians. Per wiki, their DNA matches the DNA of modern Egyptians more closely (to be fair some of them do look entirely "modern" Egyptian).

One thing is certain though. Such hybrids could not have been 'produced' if the Hellenistic Greeks were "purely" Northerners (I should repeat, the theory I posted on OP is not one of mixture but rather of purity - C. Greeks being purely Northern or purely Southern)

Now this concerns genetics and appearance. Culture is different and, as Maciamo suggested, it does not make one invicible against numerous invaders. Nor does genetic affinity mean anything either. I mean, which culture had more in common with Roman culture? the 'Eastern' Greek or the 'Northern' Germanic/Saxon/Whatever culture(s)? There's also no doubt that the Near Eastern cultures had a significant impact on Classical and Hellenistic Greek cultures which were (virtually?) devoid of "Northern" influences. I'd think the Eastern or 'Oriental' features of Greek (and later Roman!) culture is what made it so attractive (and annoying to anti-Greek Romans like Cato  :Laughing: ).

It's one thing to propose genetic affinity and another to propose cultural affinity and I'd rather that we focused on the topic of genetic affinity. 

Quite obviously, modern Greece is far from being a homogeneous nation (though for reasons I can't understand, many Greeks seem to think it is) so I would not expect to find anything like *A* typical Greek look. The country's a very diverse and, for example, the Island I'm originally from (Crete - Lasithi for anyone interested!), has a different history from that of, e.g., Northern Greece. It's not outlandish that people might look different in Crete than in Thessaloniki. 

All the other Greeks I know here (and in Greece), Northern and Southern, can tell I'm Greek (I used to think I look more Armenian or Georgian but they don't think so). So to be honest, I'm surprised we don't look more different. And I, too, find it very easy to identify other Greek students in England from looks alone.

----------


## Dianatomia

> Could you provide examples of texts pointing to this opposite?


Let me elaborate my point. First of all, the Greeks never made any direct statements concerned their racial type. The mere fact that there is such extensive Greek literature and the Greeks never made any statement about aristocrats being any different indicates by itself that there were no racial differences among different classes of ancient Greeks. If there was such a thing, the Greeks would be conscious of the fact that the elites belonged to a different subrace. 

Besides, do you expect an 18th century Belgian to make a statement about the racial types of Belgian aristocrats and Belgian workers being the same? Ofcourse not. There is no reason to do such a thing. The Ptolemaic Greeks of Egypt however were different compared to the Egyptians and they were very well aware of that. 

There are on the other hand numerous indications and statements in Greek literature that Greeks were different from north Europeans and Africans. Even Thracians (their direct northern neighbours) were said to be lighter than the Greeks. Why not mention that the kings or Aristocrats where fairer too?





> What painting or art are you referring to ? The only ones I know show white-skinned women with black hair, _though there is no way to know if they are indigenous Greeks or part of the foreign Mycenaean elites._


Indeed, but why put the burden on the question of elites being different? It is up to the one who makes the claim that the elites are different compared to the normal people to proove that there is evidence to believe so. If the evidence is absent, then why make the case? We might as well assume that the elites are darker than the common people and that the ones portrayed are the kings. 




> It is also interesting to note that the two dominant haplogroups in Crete nowadays are R1b and J2, so it could very well be that a white-skinned R1b population mixed with an older dark-skinned J2 population around the 2nd millennium BCE. It appears that circa 1500-1300 BCE, the two groups hadn't merged completely yet, and that both types could be found quite distinctly (unlike today).


No doubt that different sub-racial groups have mixed in Ancient Greece, but what does that say about the ancient Myceneans resembling North Europeans? No one is portrayed as blond. If they were mostly R1b people as you say, they would resemble Northern Europeans. Instead they resemble modern Greeks who are very much white skinned and have dark brown hair with brown eyes. I find that Greeks (in winter times) have very pale skin, while North Europeans have a pink skintone. 

Moreover, I'm sure J2 people can be dark, but I doubt that they were as dark as we may be lead to assume based on the paintings. 




> The boundary between Mycenaean and Minoan art is not always clear though, as the two civilisations co-existed side by side, and it is sometimes impossible to be sure who painted the frescoes, and what ethnic group is being depicted. The Indo-Europeans were mostly male conquerors who took local wives, and the fact that women (mostly dancers) are the ones depicted in the art from this period doesn't tell us much about the male elite. Furthermore, if the Mycenaean rulers did take local wives, their descendants would have looked hybrid, then increasingly Greek. The Mycenaean civilisation spans 800 years. There are very good chances that the Mycenaean elite in 1900 BCE did not look anything like the one from 1100 BCE, or even 1500 BCE. Unfortunately I don't know of any Mycenaean art depicting the male elite from 1900 to 1800 BCE. That would be the most interesting for us.


We don't have paintings, but we do have remains from burials. Perhaps there we can find some answers.

----------


## Wilhelm

Forget about all these nordic fantasies...ancient greek elites where like your modern Greeks...South-East mediterranean in apperance.

----------


## Vallicanus

Dianatomia,there is no direct link between Y-dna and phenotype.

To suggest that all R1b people are pale and North European and all J2 people are dark contradicts plain facts. :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  :Laughing:

----------


## Dianatomia

> Dianatomia,there is no direct link between Y-dna and phenotype.
> 
> To suggest that all R1b people are pale and North European and all J2 people are dark contradicts plain facts.


Perhaps not the individual, but a population which has an extremely high amount of J2 would be darker than a population which has a high amount of R1B. 

At least, it does in the context of this topic: "northern elites in ancient Greece and Rome". If the elites were northern, then they must have had high amounts of R1* or I. If the elites were not isolated and were multi-racial (i.e. R1*,E and J) , then that statement does not hold true scientifically. In that case, individuals of ancient elites could be R1* and have dark hair and eyes, or could be J2 and could be blonde with blue eyes. This results to your average South European mix which means that the elites were not northern.

However, judging from art, paintings, literature and burial remains, all the evidence points to the opposite. Meaning, that the elites (at least of Greece) were not (exclusively) of north european ancestry.

----------


## Boss

> Perhaps not the individual, but a population which has an extremely high amount of J2 would be darker than a population which has a high amount of R1B. 
> 
> At least, it does in the context of this topic: "northern elites in ancient Greece and Rome". If the elites were northern, then they must have had high amounts of R1* or I. If the elites were not isolated and were multi-racial (i.e. R1*,E and J) , then that statement does not hold true scientifically. In that case, individuals of ancient elites could be R1* and have dark hair and eyes, or could be J2 and could be *blonde with blue eyes*. This results to your average South European mix which means that the elites were not northern.
> 
> However, judging from art, paintings, literature and burial remains, all the evidence points to the opposite. Meaning, that the elites (at least of Greece) were not (exclusively) of north european ancestry.


Quick point:

None of the Greco-Roman painted statues I've seen, have have blue eyes or blonde hair (most are brown or light brown). Gods and non-humans excluded. I am not convinced that that means anything for the ethnicity of these people.












(it looks as though Augustus's lips are of the same colour as his eyes  :Grin: )



People are free to draw whatever conclusions they want from them.

----------


## Maciamo

> Let me elaborate my point. First of all, the Greeks never made any direct statements concerned their racial type. The mere fact that there is such extensive Greek literature and the Greeks never made any statement about aristocrats being any different indicates by itself that there were no racial differences among different classes of ancient Greeks. If there was such a thing, the Greeks would be conscious of the fact that the elites belonged to a different subrace.


Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.





> No doubt that different sub-racial groups have mixed in Ancient Greece, but what does that say about the ancient Myceneans resembling North Europeans? No one is portrayed as blond. If they were mostly R1b people as you say, they would resemble Northern Europeans. Instead they resemble modern Greeks who are very much white skinned and have dark brown hair with brown eyes. I find that Greeks (in winter times) have very pale skin, while North Europeans have a pink skintone.


I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.

----------


## Diurpaneus

> I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.



Here are some examples:

http://www.ziaremondene.ro/files/pho..._Ungureanu.jpg

the "left-right" brothers

http://www.imagini.ha-ha.ro/imagini/...har_cu_vin.jpg


ancient persians

http://www.cultureofiran.com/images/.../nouruz-02.jpg




more "mongoloid" traits:

http://www.frontpress.ro/wp-content/...ures-19391.jpg


http://www.imagini.ha-ha.ro/imagini/..._maramures.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KugpuHRwBo...ecfcbf84_z.jpg



the first picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAtdTlTb5Hw

----------


## Yetos

> Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.


Nope,
Moggolians and Uygurs are much much darker,

In Bulgaria in East parts were Bulgars and Turks (Edirne) settled we have the darkest people in Balkans

conserning the look here are some photos of Tocharian mummies






and look how is reconstructed




I woder how different was Otzi?

there are some good photos in 
http://realhistoryww.com/world_histo...ite_people.htm



Like the bellow,
Albinism in Pakistan today in a tribe 
do you believe they are pakistanis?
or North Europeans?

----------


## Dianatomia

> Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.


If the people didn't understand even to a degree the variations in antiquity, then how are the elites supposed to have maintained their 'northern' ancestry compared to the rest of the populations? Either they had some general understanding or they didn't care. If they didn't care, there is no reason to believe that the elites were different from the commoners for so many generations. 

You are right to devote your attention to early Mycenean Greece. If they were Indo-European you only have to dig deep enough in order to find more R1a or R1b. However, it may very well be that just like the south Slavs, they were already mixed when they invaded Greece in 2000 BC. 

Having said that, I think that when most people like to claim that there were 'northern' elites in Ancient Greece, they like to refer to Homeric, Classical and Hellenistic Greeks. Not the early Myceaneans.

----------


## Knovas

Albinism has nothing to do with ancestral markers, I see no reason to post about this. The text below the picture is nonsense.

----------


## Yetos

> Albinism has nothing to do with ancestral markers, I see no reason to post about this. The text below the picture is nonsense.


Nope it has much to do,

The myth of a Northern Blond Elite Blue eyes IE maybe even is a myth, 

as you see Albinism which in some villages show big % can also give results simmilar to Blondism, 

now conserning thatin frica thay eat Albinos,
maybe the born of an albino child was like a messiah to some other cultures,

what I mean the myth of Blond IE even in North Europe does not fit,
Blondism is mutation in Baltic and not in Steppe, 

I post the link so some to understand that a IE in steppe might be a black R1b or R1a like in Africa,

Mutations like blondism enter from Female population to IE populations 

Now in case of Balkanic and Ucraine population we see the red hair much North than the Tracians south,
Blue eyes Budini are much North than Green eyes Thracians and we see no Mycenean Blond or Red but naibly a Brown from dark to light Brown,
BROWN HAIR IS LIKE AN ALBINISM,
*BROWN HAIR MEANS LUCK OF COLOUR CHROMOSOME,*

IF IE were an elite from North then why Blond and red hair are even rare to Roman times to today?
why they did not enter their genes in women that probably had weak hair colour chromosomes?

kids with brown hair may even born more blond white colour,

In Greece that phenomenon is strong, 
I was born Blond until 3 years old and now I am brown, Dark brown in winter light brown to almost orange at summer.

----------


## Boss

> Forget about all these nordic fantasies...ancient greek elites where like your modern Greeks...South-East mediterranean in apperance.


It's not at all obvious that it should be so. Modern Greece has received many populations during the past 2000 years. What's more, different areas were under different occupations. E.g. Crete has had 150 years of Andalusian Muslim occupation followed by 450 years of Venetian occupation and ending with 250 years of Turkish rule. Now none of the other regions in Greece had that. The Ionian islands were never under Turkish rule but most of mainland Greece had nearly 400 years of it. Morea had Frankish rule for centuries (250 years) - again, it's unique in that regard. As far as I know, the Slavs never reached Southern Greece and the Islands but Bulgars held Northern Greece for some time. Arvanites and Vlachs settled in Central (and Northern?) Greece and, according to some sources, Athens had a sizeable Arvanite community for a long time. 

So yeah...It's not at all obvious that A. Greeks and M. Greeks should look identical (not denying there's some kind of continuity) and it's not even obvious that among different regions, Greeks should look similar (as I said I find it surprising that we do).

----------


## Yetos

> It's not at all obvious that it should be so. Modern Greece has received many populations during the past 2000 years. What's more, different areas were under different occupations. E.g. Crete has had 150 years of Andalusian Muslim occupation followed by 450 years of Venetian occupation and ending with 250 years of Turkish rule. Now none of the other regions in Greece had that. The Ionian islands were never under Turkish rule but most of mainland Greece had nearly 400 years of it. Morea had Frankish rule for centuries (250 years) - again, it's unique in that regard. As far as I know, the Slavs never reached Southern Greece and the Islands but Bulgars held Northern Greece for some time. Arvanites and Vlachs settled in Central (and Northern?) Greece and, according to some sources, Athens had a sizeable Arvanite community for a long time. 
> 
> So yeah...It's not at all obvious that A. Greeks and M. Greeks should look identical (not denying there's some kind of continuity) and it's not even obvious that among different regions, Greeks should look similar (as I said I find it surprising that we do).


The difference is that these you call settlements were Elite except of Athens Arbanites estimated to 50-70 000 in Athens and Boiotia, 
in Crete Venicians were forbiden to take their families or to mary, 
only in Lasithi I think it was allowed to settle 10 000 venicians,

If you are Cretan ask your self,
what the job of καλημεριδες, 
and why in areas near Goergia Lyra sings.

----------


## Knovas

From Wiki:

*Albinism* (from Latin _albus_, "white"; _see extended etymology_, also called *achromia*, *achromasia*, or *achromatosis*) is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin. Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans. While an organism with complete absence of melanin is called an *albino* ( /ælˈbaɪnoʊ/ American English,[1] or /ælˈbiːnoʊ/ British English)[2] an organism with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as *albinoid*.[3]

As you can see, it's pretty clear there's no ancestral information to infer from this, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

----------


## Yetos

> From Wiki:
> 
> *Albinism* (from Latin _albus_, "white"; _see extended etymology_, also called *achromia*, *achromasia*, or *achromatosis*) is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin. Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans. While an organism with complete absence of melanin is called an *albino* ( /ælˈbaɪnoʊ/ American English,[1] or /ælˈbiːnoʊ/ British English)[2] an organism with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as *albinoid*.[3]
> 
> As you can see, it's pretty clear there's no ancestral information to infer from this, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.


*ty, you just show me want I want you to see,*

some colours are due to a gene,
some are due to lack of a gene
enzymes production is not same to all humans cause sometimes the productivity is connected with the existance or lack of a gene

Brown hair colour is like Albinism, lack of a gene that gives colour to hair

brown hair people can change their hair by controling hormones, food, sunlight, mettals, natural
blonde and red and black very difficult

Both Tocharian mummies and Otzi have brown hair and black.
ok Otzi was not IE but Tocharian mummies?
(or Otzi was since G2a3?)

----------


## Knovas

NO, it's not the same. Albinism is a *disorder*, having brown hair is not. What's your point then? are the most depigmented Finns and Scandinavians Albinos according to you? Sorry, but it makes no sense to talk about this here...I think you're twisting things.

----------


## Yetos

> NO, it's not the same. Albinism is a *disorder*, having brown hair is not. What's your point then? are the most depigmented Finns and Scandinavians Albinos according to you? Sorry, but it makes no sense to talk about this here...I think you're twisting things.


ok,
lets see, the photos of tocharian mumies is not a disorder,

you are talking about the photo with the pakistani's right?

and I ask you,
if in a village we find no albinism for centuries,
and in another we find very common, 
is n't that strange?

now have you ever wonder why Albinism gives blonde and red hair?

I don't say that Scans are albinos, I believe that the genes of Blonde and Red are founder mutattions of local populations or from a disosrter while brown or the lack of the colour gene might be an early protection against the disorder.

IT IS COMMON PHENOMENA A BLOND SCAND OR RUS WHEN COMES TO GREECE TO HAVE SKIN BURN IN 1/2 -1 HOUR sun exposion, 
so maybe the order is after the disorter?

TO END THIS 
I SAY THAT IE EITHER STEPPE, EITHER NEAR EAST WERE NOT BLONDES, NEITHER RED, 
BUT THEY GOT RED AND BLONDE FROM THE AREAS THEY ENTER.... FROM FEMALE POPULATION.

IF IE WERE BLONDES THEN BALKANS SHOULD BE MORE BLONDES, CAUSE IF A STRONG GENE WITH A WEAK GENE MEET STRONG GIVES ITS ORDERS.

my point is Brown Blond and red is a nature help to transform Albinism disorter to an order, 

an Albino has better chances in a dark forest of North than in Mediterrenean sea, so the % disorter has better chances to become order in one day.

----------


## Boss

> The difference is that these you call settlements were Elite except of Athens Arbanites estimated to 50-70 000 in Athens and Boiotia, 
> in Crete Venicians were forbiden to take their families or to mary, 
> only in Lasithi I think it was allowed to settle 10 000 venicians,
> 
> If you are Cretan ask your self,
> what the job of καλημεριδες, 
> and why in areas near Goergia Lyra sings.


Arbanites:

I've seen figures ranging from tens of thousands to half a million. Where do you get that figure from?

As for Venice:

"The application of Venetian law to the colony made it possible for the colonial power to create and maintain a fiction of ethnic distinctness. The Greeks were subordinate to the Latins economically, politically, and juridically, yet within a century of Venetian colonization, the ethnic differences between Latin and Greek Cretans in daily material life were significantly blurred. Members of the groups intermarried, many of them learned each other's language, and some even chose to worship by the rites of the other's church. "

So what you say was true for the first 100 years but not true for the following 350+. Read McKee's book, there's much more to be said about it (I don't have it with me atm but I can quote many more of her passages if I need to).

And yes I am Lasithiote Cretan (as in, actually born and raised there, not being Canadian or whatever of Cretan origin) and I know Cretan society really well. I know my neighbours' last names, I know what our accent sounds like and I know a great deal of the words our great grandparents used which are not used anymore. The words of Turkish and Venetian origin in particular used to be so numerous that I couldn't even understand what my great grandparents were talking about (some of them not having a formal education at all).

The best counter-argument is that after their defeat by the Turks, many 'Latinised' Cretans probably migrated to Venice and so did the Muslims following the Cretan revolution (the entire community migrated to Turkey even though most of them were Cretan Greeks who had converted to Islam for taxation purposes and didn't even speak Turkish). But ofc, the Orthodox community remained.

Oh also, let's not forget that when Fokas pwned the Arabs (Andalusians), he repopulated the Island with Byzantines (Romans!) from the rest of the Empire. So maybe many of us today don't have anything to do with the pre-Byzantine Crete as far as genetics are concerned...

----------


## Yetos

> Arbanites:
> 
> I've seen figures ranging from tens of thousands to half a million. Where do you get that figure from?
> 
> As for Venice:
> 
> "The application of Venetian law to the colony made it possible for the colonial power to create and maintain a fiction of ethnic distinctness. The Greeks were subordinate to the Latins economically, politically, and juridically, yet within a century of Venetian colonization, the ethnic differences between Latin and Greek Cretans in daily material life were significantly blurred. Members of the groups intermarried, many of them learned each other's language, and some even chose to worship by the rites of the other's church. "
> 
> So what you say was true for the first 100 years but not true for the following 350+. Read McKee's book, there's much more to be said about it (I don't have it with me atm but I can quote many more of her passages if I need to).
> ...



The story of Handakas is another story, 
repopulation was not done by the whole empire but mainly Ionia, and there are areas in Crete that almost from Minoan times are the same, 
Σητεια kai Γορτυνα are considered teritories with low mix.
The case of Minoans from ancient times to today the major problem is the repopulation of the Island after Thera Volcano.and not Venice or Arabs, 
In whole Greece little are the considered Venice population areas, although many were under control.
in case of Ottomans you know that Turks never settled Island that was property of Hamid's mother 
2 kind of Cretans are mentioned as Muslims, Hamindje in Syria, and a Village in Turkey,
Back to geneticks, 
Sometimes isolated group of villages give more correct result, 
remember that in Greece even in small islands we avoid to mary closer than 2nd cousins,
sometimes we bring the bride, sometimes the γαμπρος. there were villages that a foreigner if was good worker marry him with violence, remember that,

Now about Numbers, 
once I was at Chania I lloked the Catholic church numbers, and they are almost the same with what they were before 150 years.

----------


## Dianatomia

> It's not at all obvious that it should be so. Modern Greece has received many populations during the past 2000 years. What's more, different areas were under different occupations.


No one denies that the Greeks have absorbed other people who have settled in Greek populated lands during the last 2000 years. But based on historical, genetical and antrhopological data we can definately take the position of a considerable genetic continuty among the Greek peoples. 

In short, Ancient Greeks are a mix of mostly pre-Greeks and IE Greeks. Modern Greeks are mostly pre-Greeks, IE Greeks and Hellenized people.

----------


## Beast

> Let's not mix up everything. I wrote that I expected the original _Romans_ to be light-skinned, and of a more northern (read Central-West European, as opposed to East Mediterranean). 
> 
> As for the Greeks, I only said that the Mycenaeans (c. 1900-1100 BCE), especially in early centuries of their rule, were most probably a distinct ethnic group of (fair skinned/eyed) Indo-Europeans from the steppes (belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a and/or R1b). I specifically explained that the Greek classes almost certainly got mixed during the ensuing Dark Ages, so that Classical Greeks were already heavily hybridised, though with different admixtures depending on the regions. This hypothesis of regional genetic variations within ancient Greece is strongly supported by the present-day distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups (my example of Thessaly vs Crete). 
> 
> So I didn't said that the aristocracy of Classical Greek (C. 510-323 BCE) was fair-skinned/eyed. They were probably as mixed as modern Greeks in this regard, though probably lighter in average because Classical Greek imported a lot of Egyptian slaves that only blended with the rest of population from the late Antiquity and Middle Ages. 
> 
> Alexander the Great, who was blond with one blue eye (the other was brown), appears to have been an exception within Greek society in having a fair complexion. I merely hypothesised earlier in this thread that this could be because he had more Mycenaean (do Indo-European) blood in him, perhaps because Macedonian nobility didn't mix as much with the rest of the population during the Dark Ages.
> 
> The Romans started intermarrying with the (dark-skinned/haired/eyed) Etruscans from the 3rd century BCE, and increasingly over the next centuries. The Romans also mixed with the Greeks from southern Italy around that time. By the 1st century CE, many Romans had also become hybridised, resembling more the Greeks (slaves excluded) than they had ever before.
> ...


I don't think haplogroups has anything to do with looks. And noble people intermarried with other noble people from neighboring countries to establish a stronger relationship.

And I think you're forgetting Alexander the greats mother was Epirotan. And some sources doubt that his father was Philip.

And If I remember right, some historians aruge that the ancient macedonians were Thracians/Illyrians but were eventually hellenized in culture.

----------


## telamonios

Helots of Sparta. was a different case.Mostly were Messinians under Spartan rule who had to pay certain tax, and have a population control but could produce more agricultural goods for themselves.They were protected by the Spartan state.because they were considered state property.Even a Spartan citizen wasnt allowed to harm a Helot.(The CRYPTIA case is a different story)
I m new to the forum and i noticed a high intellectual level.Good job.

----------


## Vallicanus

The ancient Roman Republican elite in Latium had a strong Adriatic or Dinaric phenotypical element judging by busts and coin portraits of the Late Republic and Early Empire.

----------


## Templar

I think overall, we agree that originally there was an Indo-European elite in both ancient Rome and Greece (and in many other places such as Persia and India), but over time due to admixture and socio-political changes it became less prominent. The Indo-European elite wasn't "Nordic" which is an 19th delusion, but they did have very light skin, eyes, and hair, compared to the native populations. I think this is confirmed by this one study (I can't remember where I found it) that measured skull width of Greeks, and they noticed that the lighter-haired ones usually had wider faces than the dark-haired ones. I think this supports the theory that Indo-Europeans had cold-adapted slightly "Mongoloid" traits.

----------


## Yetos

> I think overall, we agree that originally there was an Indo-European elite in both ancient Rome and Greece (and in many other places such as Persia and India), but over time due to admixture and socio-political changes it became less prominent. The Indo-European elite wasn't "Nordic" which is an 19th delusion, but they did have very light skin, eyes, and hair, compared to the native populations. I think this is confirmed by this one study (I can't remember where I found it) that measured skull width of Greeks, and they noticed that the lighter-haired ones usually had wider faces than the dark-haired ones. I think this supports the theory that Indo-Europeans had cold-adapted slightly "Mongoloid" traits.


first of all with IEans we mean what?
the baltics?
the blondes?
the steppe people?
the anatolians?
or the IE speakers?

2nd do you know certain where IE was protospoken?
steppe? baltic? midlle East, Zagros? Balkans(Varna)? outside India?Armenia?Georgia-Laz?

3 are you sure that alpine anthropometrical race is connected with IE? 

4 have you ever thought that aryan nose or aquiline (eagle) nose might characteristic of IE?
how many 'wide face' 'kighter skin' have that nose?
how many wider face have wavy hair and not straw-straight?

5 searching summerian language we see except Nostradic another propability also the Ur-Urartian,
and the Akkadian vocabulary that exist in modern IE languages even in North IE or India,

6 have you ever thought Otzi could speak IE?

7 have you compare Varna-Balkanic culture with Kurgans, Egypt, Georgia, midlle East?

8 a good question is why Balkanic and Ucraine IE burry their dead, and Indo-Iranians didn't 

9 with lighter skin you mean what? meditereneans are light or dark skin? where you put brown people?

10 Inuit and Mongols are wide face, are they lighter skin? Nordic are lighter skin, are they wide face?
I mean was the language of mongols or Inuit an IE language?

11 try to connect tocharians with Dionysos campaign as Ptolemy say, why from Tocharians and west we have tombs, and why from Tocharians and East or south we don't?
Tocharians were R1a, but they went to central Asia from minor Asia - middle East, 
why half R1a from Tocharians to west has kurgans, and the rest half that enters India does not?
Prove, search biography of Alexander by Ptolemy and Arianos
prove the later Zaratustran religion dead-places and the kallasha wich follow half Indian-Half European burial system
If Kurgans was an IE custom, why they did not transmited it to India?.

----------


## Bodric

Modern Ukrainians with wide jaws are probable to be more phenotypically alike the proto-IE peoples? 

I read it in a study that the proto-IE peoples we're wide jawed for some (unknown for me) reason.

If you google ukrainian women you will see what I mean.. Wider cheekbones etc.

----------

