Friday, December 30, 2016

한국사람들도 미국사람과 마찮가지로 일반상식수준이 아주낮다

  • howryou 2016-12-29 23:53:13 | 신고

    우리나라도 일반상식 그리 높은편 아닙니다 영국 화폐가 뭔지 모르는 사람들 태반일거고 베트남전쟁에서 동베트남 서베트남 중 누가 이겼냐고 물으면 동 서 중 고를 사람들 꽤 많을겁니다 마지막 질문도 똑같이 물으면 북한과 비슷한 수치로 일본이라고 대답할걸요 베스트 댓글
    http://m.ygosu.com/board/yeobgi/1142893/?searcht=&search=&m3=real_article&frombest=Y&page=7

Difference Between Egyptian Art and Greek Art

Egyptian Art and Greek Art
Egyptian and Greek civilizations have a long and glorious history and have contributed in various fields like art and architecture. Though there are several similarities between Greek and Egyptian art, they have many concrete differences between them.
When talking about Greek and Egyptian art, it is the sculpture and architecture that comes to everyone’s mind.
Egyptian art was more oriented towards religion. On the contrary, Greek art was much more oriented towards philosophy. Unlike Egyptian art, Greek art examined the world as it was and explored the various concepts of life.
Let us look at the differences between the Greek and the Egyptian sculptures and architecture that gives a clear picture of the differences between the two art forms.
The Egyptian statues followed very strict laws. The figures were very large with large heads and plump faces with no expression. There was no trace of emotion in the faces. The emphasis of Egyptian art was more on the symmetry.


The Greek statues had some reality in them. They were quite natural unlike the Egyptian statues. The Greek statues explored human anatomy like the various organs, expressions, and muscles. Emotions and expressions were written on the face of the Greek statues. The Greek statues were not based on any symmetry.
While nudity was used only in statues of children and servants in Egyptian art, male nudity and female nudity was in vogue in Greek art. The young males are depicted naked without any garments. The Greek sculptures show some action or movement whereas the Egyptian statues are just fixed ones.
In Egyptian architecture, more ornamental stones were used. Less durable marble and limestone is used in Greek architecture. When talking of pottery, the Greek pottery had paintings on them that differentiated it from all others.
Summary:
1.Egyptian art was more oriented towards religion. On the contrary, the Greek art was much more oriented towards philosophy.
2.Unlike Egyptian art, Greek art examined the world as it was and explored the various concepts of life.
3.The emphasis of Egyptian statues was more on the symmetry. The Greek statues were not based on any symmetry.
4.The Egyptian statues followed very strict laws. The figures were very large with large heads and plump faces with no expression. The Greek statues had some reality in them. Emotions and expressions were written on the faces of the Greek statues.


http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/culture-miscellaneous/difference-between-egyptian-art-and-greek-art/

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Thursday, December 22, 2016

jazz chords and harmony is copied from classical music and west african music is also affected by greek music via middle east


History of African Rhythms


A brief background and history of African Music
 
The African continent is the second largest continent in the world, and its people constitute a 10th of the world’s population with about one thousand indigenous languages spoken throughout the continent.
 
In this context, it is important that a brief history of African music cannot be conclusive and is more complex than we realize. No scholar has managed to offer a perspective about African culture that has not been contested. Given this emerging history, we can only provide a bird’s eye view of African music, dance, village life and the famous rhythms.
 
African music has a long history that has been orally transmitted from one generation to the other and captured in written form in excerpts found in journals of western explorers.
 
Writings on African music are largely based on western theoretical frameworks, and literature available under categories such as African music; world music, global music and ethnomusicology influences the discussion of African music. Most of the African music history has been surrounded by controversy on representation of African cultural heritage by non-native observers. 
 
Modern scholars of African music such as Hugh Tracy of South Africa (we sell his karimbas in our school), Nketia of Ghana, Mngoma of South Africa, Maraire of Zimbabwe and Makabuya of Uganda and others have expressed their reservation about misrepresentation of African culture by people who did not understand the people and the functions of the arts in those people’s lives. These discussions have highlighted a need to introduce context-based approach in the study of music and dance in Africa.
 
Music and Dance
Dance, music, and story-telling are among the ancient art forms that have flourished for many centuries in Africa. Music and dance are terms that we will use to denote musical practices of African people. Ancient African society did not separate their every day life activities from their music and other cultural experience. 
 
Stone (1998) attests to the difficulty of separating music from the cultural context as she says:
 
Honest observers are hard pressed to find single indigenous group in Africa that has a term congruent to the usual western notion of “music.” There are terms for more specific acts like singing, playing instruments, and more broadly performing (dance, games, music); but the isolation of musical sound from other arts proves a western abstraction, of which we should be aware when we approach the study of performance in Africa.
 
Music and dance are activities that characterize an African musical expression and play an important part in the lives of the people. Many African cultures do not have a word for music and dance. For example, the Kpelle people of Liberia use a single word “sang” to describe a well danced movement.
 
For our purposes, the term African music will encompass music and dance. Early historical accounts of music and dance among Africans can be found in oral literature that take different forms such as folk tales, myths, epics, praise poems and historical accounts on rituals. Music and dance in Africa have served both utilitarian and aesthetic functions. 
 
The utilitarian function involves the use of music in everyday activities, including music at the child’s naming ceremonies, child rearing practices, initiation rights, agricultural activities, national ceremonies, war times, religious ceremonies and those meant for the dead. In most ceremonies, even death ceremonies, music and dance go together.
 
Oral traditions
African people traditionally and in the modern day have a rich oral tradition that insures the passage of cultural practices from one generation to another. Scholars argue that oral literature and music are intimately connected in most parts of Africa and are often impossible to separate.
 
Listening has been an important skill that has been perfected by oral traditional practices. A number of African musical songs and dances were and are still transmitted from one generation or group to another by word of mouth. Very often recorded in analog or digital form, these recordings give us great insight into a history we can never completely know.
 
Some African scholars argue that the shift to writing down African music compromises the performance of African music and dance. Others, who oppose the transcription of African songs, argue that songs tend to be forced to comply with western musical idiom or stylistic writing. 
 
There may be a need to develop modern ways of transcribing African music and dance as modern traditional transcriptions tend to fail to account for some melodic and rhythmic patterns. These methods try to account for some rhythmic and melodic patterns that fall outside the boundaries of the present music notational systems.
 
Choral music is a popular traditional form that has interested a number of young African students to study music formally at colleges and universities. It has also made it easier for Africans to relate to western art music, especially compositions of the Baroque and the Romantic periods, which have choral parts.
 
While the debate on the suitability of staff notation for African musical idioms continues, tonic solfa remains the most widely used and understood notional medium for many Africans who are music enthusiasts. Traditional music and dance in Africa are media that have remained immunized to the western notational debates. They are largely taught and transmitted from one person to the other orally. Modeling is one widely used method for teaching others. Dance troupes that visit different countries perform difficult, complex and multi rhythmic and melodic phrases and movement through oral practices that have been perfected over the centuries.
 
Religious Beliefs
Indigenous religious practices in Africa have also been influenced by Christian and Islamic practice, among other world religions. Foreign religions in Africa have played an important part in shaping the current musical practices in Africa. These musical practices have helped to develop both our vocal traditions and musical instruments. Today, Africa can boast of a number of musical styles and instruments that modern Africans play due to this rich religious influence.
 
Other religions, such as African indigenous beliefs, suffered a long history of suppression by colonists. A number of indigenous songs and instruments have been kept away from western Christian church services until recently. Africans who decided to join Christianity were encouraged to disassociate themselves with the traditional musical practices, while others continued to practice African traditional beliefs in secret.
 
On the other hand, Shilaoh (1995), in a discussion on the influence of Islamic and Arabic cultures on the musical traditions of African people, argues that the Africanization of Islam made it easier for African to adjust to the new religious imposition. The adjustment was not as radical as it is supposed to be because the African converts did not have to abandon their traditional music completely, even when they learned Islamic cantillation or become familiar with Arabic music. The connection between African music and dance to African culture has helped to sustain a number of ancient musical practices.
 
There is a large inventory of literature on African music in religious contexts. The Groves dictionary of music and musicians mentions the Turner seminal work, the Drums of Affliction (1968), that focused on religious process among the Ndembu of Zambia, while Euba (1977) studied drumming for the Yoruba orisa (orisa) Transcendental being Eshu (Esu). Kofi documented music in the context of “vudo” among the Fon of Togo, while Djenda focused on death among the Mpyemo society. (Ein Todesfall, 1968) Garfia wrote about dreams and spirit possession among the Shona (1979-1980), Nketia on funeral dirges among the Akan (1955), and Rouget on trance in several societies (1985). 
 
The practice of the Griot, specialized court musicians in a number of African cultures, has helped to maintain some religious dances and music. The Malinke, Fulani, Hausa are some of the African traditions where the Griots are omnipresent in the cultural life of the society.
 
Influences from other cultures
African music and dance has survived as long as we can remember the existence of humankind. Looking at pictorial representations that come from historical records on the existence of humans, we know that there was music in African people’s lives. African performance is a tightly wrapped bundle of arts that is sometimes difficult to separate, even for analysis. As Europeans began to study Africa, and in particular its music, their interpretations emphasized a music that was rather monotonous, static and inactive. Presenting themselves as ever-adventurous Europeans, they associated themselves with music of change and development. The Europeans misperceptions came from a lack of appreciation of African musical subtleties, including language of performance.
 
African music has influenced a number of musical practices in the New World, Europe and other continents. Some of the major influences on African music can be attributed to the role played by trade, globalization and colonialism. 
 
Some scholars argue that it is misleading to state that African music is more functional than other musical traditions. They believe that social context varies according to the cultural profile of the society. A number of writers still present African music as fulfilling a functional role in African society. The notion is related to the freezing of the African experience in the past, which is often challenged.
 
All countries in Africa, with the exception of possibly Ethiopia and Liberia, have undergone a period of foreign domination. This has brought the trappings of foreign culture, affecting the economic, political and cultural infrastructures of African society. Popular music has been used as a vehicle to communicate the struggle against many forms of domination, including the struggle for equal rights and the struggles of workers and life in shantytowns surrounding big cities. We need to acknowledge that popular music in Africa represents the interaction between foreign values and styles. 
 
Popular music is therefore a site for adaptation, assimilation, eclecticism, appropriation, and experimentation. Popular music stems from the 20th century global development that broke down the national boundaries and opened them to free market forces. We can now argue that popular music has become a global phenomenon propelled by 20th century technological developments. A number of scholars, including Lalendle, Ballantine and Copland, tend to look at the socio-cultural contributions of popular music.
 
African popular music market may be fraught with contradictions, but what remains uncontested is the energy and diversity of music creativity on the continent. 
 
Today, musical instruments and styles provide the basis of contemporary music. The following artists represent a growing cadre of internationally renowned African groups and musicians, which includes Youssou N Dour (Senegal), Lady Smith Black Mambazo (South Africa), Thomas Mapfumo (Zimbabwe). Pop styles have deliberately maintained an indigenous sound through the use of traditional instruments to appeal to western audiences whose need for roots reflects their own sense of communal loss. The growing demand for “authentic” African music by the world-music markets has profoundly affected the nature of the production of music, whose construction involves a complex trait in opportunity and exploitation, fantasy and imagination, style and recollection, appropriation, assimilation and dispossession.
 
Africans have a profound influence on world music today. We can trace this influence to times before the popularization of Jazz as a true hybrid of African and Western musical idioms. Trade played a major role in exposing other nations to African music. Diaries of early explorers are full of accounts that at times exhibit their biases about a culture they viewed as primitive and inferior to their own.
 
The African influence on Jazz, Reggae, Rhythm and Blues, Hip hop, Rap and other popular forms of music that exist in America, Asia, Europe and other continents cannot be discounted. 
 
Africans contributed to the first popular form of amusement indigenous to the American scene was the minstrel show, a distinctly native combination of a sort folk vaudeville with topical songs of a Negroid character." It is within this context that Africa continues to play a major role in reshaping the world music. One of the major African music idioms that have influence world music is captured in Jazz. 
 
Jazz is a kind of music fusing elements from such widely differing sources as European harmony, Euro-African melody, and African rhythm into a kind of improvisations style based on a fixed rhythmic foundation. Its beginnings can be traced to the Negro musicians in the French quarters of the city of New Orleans around 1890.
 

greeks and egyptians have the same ancestor

ClSt/ComL 200


Ancient "Sources" for Greek Myths


Introduction

Where did the Greek myths come from?
There are many answers to this question. All of them bear as well on the question, "How Greek are the Greek myths? As often where there are many answers, no single answer will suffice, and all may contain elements of truth. Our business is not to decide among the available answers, but to understand the factors that gave rise to them, and to try to come up with answers of our own to the questions posed above.

Comparative Philology and the Indo-European Hypothesis

One idea about he origin of the Greek myths is closely tied up with beliefs about the origins of the Greek language.
Towards the end of the eighteenth century, scholars began to investigate systematically relationships between different languages, and to develop the idea that some languages are related to one another, some more closely than others, and that some language "families" are descended from common ancestors. One of these families came to be known variously as the Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Aryan family, which includes almost all the languages spoken in modern Europe as well as several major languages spoken in the Middle East and in South Asia. Various branches of this family can be distinguished as well. The major way of establishing similarities and making distinctions involves the comparison of similar elements of, eg, vocabulary. A classic example involves the words used in various languages to denote the make parent:
Germanic Romance Latin Greek Sanskrit
English German French Spanish Italian
father Vater pere padre padre pater pater pitar

From this comparison, one concludes that all these languages might be related; also that English and German might be more closely related to each other than they are to Spanish or Italian, and that Spanish and Italian might be more closely related to one another than they are to German or English. In fact, evidence of this sort suggests that all the languages mentioned above are descended from a common ancestor, conventionally known as Proto Indo-European, and that the individual languages belong to sub-groups, such as Germanic, Romance, etc.

Does This Work for Mythology Too?

The same method used to construct a family tree for Indo-European languages has also been used on mythology.
As we have seen, the supreme god of the Olympian pantheon is Zeus. You probably know that Zeus' equivalent in Roman culture is Jupiter. We shall soon consider the ways in which the Romans assimilated their Jupiter to the model established by the Greek Zeus. Now, however, the point I want to make is that this process was made easier by the fact that Jupiter and Zeus are related by way of Indo-European in the same way that the Greek and Latin languages are related.
One of the central characteristics of both Zeus and Jupiter is that they are considered to be the "fathers" of many of the other gods, and to be the symbolic "fathers" of the universe as a whole. Jupiter's name actually shows this: the Romans also called him "Diespiter" and understood this name to mean "Dies pater" = "Father of the Day" or "Sky Father". "Pater" (="Father") is also a common epithet of the Greek Zeus, who is frequently addressed as "Zeus pater" (="Father Zeus"). Now, the similarity of the names "Jupiter" and "Zeus pater" is noticeable, and anyone conversant with the Indo-European hypothesis might well wonder whether the names were related. If one then learns that there is a a sky god in the ancient Indian pantheon named "Dyaus-pitar" and that this god shows many of the same characteristics ascribed to Zeus and Jupiter, it becomes difficult not to see the same pattern at work in mythology that we have observed in the case of languages.
Thus modern philology has effectively demonstrated that Greek mythology is to at least some extent inherited from a mythology that was originally common to all the Indo-European peoples. It is difficult to be very specific about the forms that this mythology took: we do not have a body of Indo-European poetry that contains myths as elaborate as those of the Greeks, and the myths that do survive in ancient Indian or Irish poetry differ from the Greek myths in many respects. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the Greeks did not invent their mythology entirely, but rather that their invention took place within certain parameters established by earlier cultures.

But What Did the Greeks Think?

We have referred more than once to Herodotus' famous dictum that it was Hesiod and Homer that gave the Greeks their gods. But Herodotus surely did not think of the two poets as simply inventing the Olympian religion; rather they gave artistc form to what became extremely influential ways of thinking about the gods among later Greek culture. Herodotus also thought that the Greeks borrowed or inherited elements of their mythology from older cultures. But Herodotus and the other Greeks knew nothing about the Indo-European hypothesis. Instead, they tended to suppose that their culture was borrowed from the "older" civilizations of the Mediterranean with whom the Greeks were in contact through trade, colonization, warfare, and so forth. The two main cultures involved were the Phoenicians and the Egyptians.
Linguistically, these cultures were outside the Indo-European family, and the general shape of their religious systems too differs from that of the Greeks. Nevertheless, Herodotus did not shrink from tracing certain Greek institutions to the Egyptians in particular, and from identifying certain Greek gods and goddesses with Egyptian counterparts. There is, moreover, the myth of Io and her descendants Io was the daughter of the King of Argos. Seduced by Zeus, she wandered to Egypt and gave birth to a child, Epaphus. Epaphus became the father of Libya -- the name of a large part of northern Africa -- and of Belus, who in turn became the father of Danaus and Aegyptus. Danaus returned to his ancestral Argos, while Aegyptus became king of Egypt. (A portion of this myth is the subject of Aeschylus' Suppliants or Suppliant Maidens.) Thus, acconrding to this myth, the Greeks and the Egyptians were actually related through their ancestors Danaus and Aegyptus, two brothers descended from the Argive heroine Io.
Another myth concerns the foundation of Thebes by Cadmus, who comes to Greece from Phoenicia. One of the deeds ascribed to Cadmus is the invention of the alphabet; and in fact, it is clear that the Greek alphabet (from which our alphabet is descended) was borrowed from that of the Phoenicians. So the myth of Cadmus, which traces the origin of a centrally important Greek cultural institution to Phoenicia, appears to contain a nucleus of historical fact.

Greece and "the Orient"

An eminent historian of Greek mythology, Walter Burkert, discusses the meaning of parallels that have been observed between certain Greek myths (Heracles; the succession myth; Perseus and the Gorgon) and a number of apparently similar myths found in Near Eastern cultures. For some years now scholars have explored the relationship between Greek and Near Eastern cultures, for which myths like the ones discussed by Burkert offer an important class of evidence. But it is an open question just what such parallel myths mean. Are they cases of borrowings by a "younger" Greek culture from the "older" civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, or the Levant? Are they evidence that Greek culture was part of a larger, international culture that thrived in the Eastern Mediterranean throughout antiquity, a culture in which myths circulated freely and were constantly adapted to satisfy local conditions? Or are the similarities between Greek and Near Eastern material due less to the fact that these civilizations were in contact with one another, and more to the status of mythology as a kind of "universal language" that speaks to the human condition at a basic level that transcends cultural difference?
These questions are impossible to answer definitively. In some ways it is less important to answer them than it is to understand the implications one might draw from the various answers that one might give. In a modern context, the idea of contact between Greece and the Near East (or conversely that of Greek independence from such contact) has a very different meaning from what it might have had in antiquity, when at least some Greeks believed that they were related to peoples whom modern linguistics, at any rate, regards as belonging to wholly different cultures. This point is illustrated very clearly by the "Black Athena" controversy, so called from the title of a book arguing not only that Greek culture did in fact derive from that of Egypt, but that Egyptian culture was in some sense a "black" culture in a modern Africanist sense. Some explanations of the "origins" of the Greek myths are more or less verifiable than others; but none is free from the interested perspective of interpreters who wish to see themselves in a special relationship with ancient Greek culture.

Conclusion

By the end of the classical period, Greek culture comes more and more fully into contact with other cultures, and even comes to be dominated in the political sphere by non-Greeks. In the process, relations begin to be negotiated between all aspects of Greek culture and the corresponding elements of other cultures. But while this process becomes more intense in the Hellenistic period (c. 300-145 BC) and after, the question of what is Greek in Greek culture and, especially, in Greek mythology, is one that can be asked even in the earliest periods for which evidence survives.

created 2/15/96; modified 1/22/97, 1/18/99

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jfarrell/courses/myth/topics/ie-myth.html

there are greek temples in iran and afghanistan because of their cultural advancement

kartalkavkaz
Member Avatar
Full Member
 *  *  *
There are some Greek temples even in Iran and Afghanistan.Because of their cultural advancement,Greek cities were all around the area.Persians probably were kind of north Indians, even they brought another I.E. langue,but only source for color eyes and blond hair were Greeks and Balkan people.No other European were interested to get in to the waste land of Iran and Afghanistan.Greeks were probably the source of J2 and R1b in middle east.Because of political reason and new nationalism in the region, governments try to hide the Greek influence and even they destroy the archaeological remains.



http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4046437/3/

europe is a greek term


Monika Lewinsky
Junior Member
 *  *
DNAhunter
Dec 14 2011, 11:55 PM
I have always said that greeks don't look european
No dear sir, european is a greek term and we do look like the terms we invent.
if you wish to say that we don't look like something, do bother and coin a new term.




http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4046437/3/

nonsensical idea that current greeks are not descendants of ancient greeks invented by germanic people



“Greeks are not real Greeks” claims German WELT, favoring a DNA-based EU-membership


Posted by in Very Mix

Die Welt is a conservative daily close to Merkel’s Christian Democrat Party CDU. In this nicely set German New EU Order of  “kick Greece out of the eurozone”, Greeks have no place. For reasons not only economical but also historical and -what a surprise! – even racial. For the simple claimed fact that “Greeks already destroyed once the European Order,” so the article title in the history section of DER WELT and because modern Greeks were not descendents of the famous Greeks of the antique,  but a”Turkish-molded mixture of  Slavs, Byzantines and Albanians.” What is interesting and extremely worrying at the same time is that the WELT-author revives racial theories of the Nazis, as he quotes 19th-century Austrian scholar Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, a xenophobe and a slavophobe, who had invented the “Greeks are not real Greeks” theory.

In the context of the DNA-based eligibility for EU membership, the thesis of Conservative WELT and CDU clearly implies that apart from the fake Greeks, neither real Turks, Slavs and Albanians should be allowed in the European family of undiluted blood and pour races.

Racists to the bones

The authors makes a reference to the Battle of Navarino in 1827, during  the Greek War of Independence (1821–32), where the Great Powers (Britain, France and Russia) destroyed the Ottoman armada thus creating a breakthrough in the Greek Independence War against the Sultan.

However, according to the author the motives of the Great Powers were not geostrategical as every political scientist would think nowadays, but noble and romantic.

“The three powers did that actually against their conviction (peoples should not rise up against their monarch), but because of pure romanticism because the classically educated Western Europeans did not want the descendants of Homer, Socrates and Pericles to be further suppressed by the Turks.”

Then the author’s argumentation falls like a heavy sledgehammer on the heads of those believing that Germany had learned from the fatal mistakes of its past, it had removed from skin and uprooted from soul the racism of national-socialism. The WELT-author explains to its German conservative readers that the Great Power helped the Greeks “but for the wrong reasons.” And this because “the Greeks were not real Greeks” – so the WELT-claim – in terms of racial purification,  “inferiority – superiority” duality and cultural arrogance of the European North towards the European South.

The idea the Greeks of modern times were descendants of Pericles or Socrates and not a Turkish-molded mixture of  Slavs, Byzantines and Albanians, was a belief among the educated Europeans. Also the architects of the EU could not escape this belief.  In this senses, they brought the clammy Greece into the European boat in 1980. The consequences can be admired every day.”

The idea that Greeks are not real Greeks is not new and it has not be invented by the WELT-journalist. It first came up by Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer a Tyrolean traveller, journalist, politician and historian of the 19th century who is “best known for his controversial (some even say racist) theories concerning the racial origins of the Greeks.”

Fallmerayer’s  Greek theory

Fallmerayer devoted his scholarly activities to another Greek-speaking region of the Middle Ages, namely, the Morea – the peninsula of Peloponnese. In particular, he developed his theory that the ancient, “Hellenic“, population of the south Balkans had been replaced during the Migration Period by Slavic peoples (350-800 AD). A similar idea had already been proposed by the British traveler William Martin Leake, but Fallmerayer turned it into a theory, which he advocated with characteristic zeal.

The first volume of Fallmerayer’s Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters appeared in 1830, and he expressed his central theory in the foreword as follows:

“The race of the Hellenes has been wiped out in Europe. Physical beauty, intellectual brilliance, innate harmony and simplicity, art, competition, city, village, the splendour of column and temple — indeed, even the name has disappeared from the surface of the Greek continent…. Not the slightest drop of undiluted Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Christian population of present-day Greece.”

This phenomenon was further interpreted by Fallmerayer as an indication of the potential of the “Slavic” nations to overwhelm the “Latin” and the “German”, a line of thought which he would later develop in his political writings. He further argued that the Great Powers who had supported the Greek War of Independence had been led by a “classical intoxication” to misjudge the character of the new Greek state.

However, Fallmerayer’s not so scientific theories were not purely scholarly. They were politically motivated. The scholar was a devoted supporter of Austria’s Realpolitik and the then empires desire to expand southwards into the Balkans and antagonize Russian interests in the area

Fallmeyer who was “considered one of the great 19th-century intellectuals in the German-speaking world” was a proven slavophobe. and his racist theories were a popular component of the Nazi Propaganda.

“Fallmerayer’s theory was popular as part of the Nazi propaganda in Axis occupied Greece (1941–1944) during World War II, when classically educated Nazi officers used it as an excuse to commit numerous atrocities against the Greek population.” (via wikipedia).

Greek DNA & WELT readers

But the WELT-journalist knows very well the daily’s audience and seems to speak right into the racist DNA of its readers. It is interesting and scary but not surprisingly at the same time, to see how many supposedly classically educated Germans in the comments section on the online edition express support of this racial theory claiming that the very ancient Greeks (Dorians, Ionians) were big, blond and blue-eyed, while the modern Greeks are mainly black-haired and brown-eyed.

Some Comments translated into English by KTG:
1. Especially the people living in Greece nowadays have absolute nothing to do with the ancient Greeks.
2. Dorians and Ionians were blond and blue-eyed, and big. Not to compare with the brown-eyed dark-haired Greeks of today.
3. Strangely, the Mycenaeans were black-haired and black- or brown-eyed brown. They were probably not relatives to the Ionians, right? !
4.  No of course not. Dorians and Ionians were Germans, the Mycenaean were Slavs, the Minoans were Egyptians and I’m a MartianLet’s ignore all genetic tests that  prove the contrary.
5. The Mycenaeans were migrants from the North.

DNA-based EU eligibility

In a ironically soft criticism to DIE WELT article, the German edition of popular VICE website notes:
“.. to suggest that Greeks were somehow too Turkish overbuiltfor the EU and that they had gambled away any claim to EU membership because of their racial purity that’s an interesting interpretation of European history.
But perhaps the author is just jealous because the Greeks, unlike his ancestors actually indeed got their One Thousand Year Reich.”
It must have been with certainty a huge moral relief for the “Kick Greeks out of the Euro” supporters to have created a contemporary scapegoat based on historically and scientifically questionable race purification theories. Never mind the racist aspect… Main-thing is, they can justify that Greece was always bad for Europe, while in contrast Germany was always good. Apart from the fact that Germany sent to death 16 millions in the WWI and 50-85 millions in the WWII, thus disturbing the German ideal of Heile Welt, the perfect idyllic world of tranquility and ignorance for a couple of years..


 PS DIE WELT is not BILD, and classic education does not provide immunity to  “racial intoxication”.


Awaiting for the moment when Two-Speed EU technocrats will be performing DNA tests to future EU members


“European ideals”, my a**
 

modern greeks are mostly descendants of pelasgian greeks and have nothing to do with indo-europeans


Topic Started: Jan 7 2011, 05:50 PM (17,539 Views)
Hellenas
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *
Are the Greeks "still" Indo-European? Were they ever?

Posted Image

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/7.html

Modern Greeks do not descend predominantly from Indo-Europeans. It is silly to talk about whether or not the Greeks are any longer Indo-European, since the people living within the geographic boundaries of Greece were at no time predominantly Indo-European by ancestry. However, the aristocracy of classical Greece would indeed have derived from Indo-Europeans.

Both ancient and modern Greeks have nothing to do with the imaginery "germanic-indo-europeans". The Greeks who came back to Greece after their extension to upper balkans, were of the same racial stock like the pelasgian Greeks, ancient Greek historians never said a word for the imaginery indo-europeans but they spoke of the "return of Heraclides", of Achaeans, Aeolians, Ionians and Dorians. The Aristocracy of the ancient Greeks for the most part was Mediterranean and Alpine not "nordic-barbarian".

Theories of origin of the Greeks:

The origins of mankind has always fascinated philosophers, scientists, and ordinary citizens. Specifically, the Greeks are interested to know the biological roots of our people in Europe. For the origin of the inhabitants of Greece have been three theories.

• The theory of Indo-European origin of the Greeks, based on linguistic analysis and comparisons with no archaeological or other evidence. Comparative linguists are the main supporters. Despite the wide dissemination, this theory is not based on solid sources, and must be rejected.

• The theory of indigenous, supported themselves by the ancient Greeks. The main exponent of this theory is Professor Colin Renfrew.

http://hellas2010.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=raceandanthropology&action=display&thread=2

John V. Day notes that:

Indo-Europeans often seem to have been small minorities in the countries they penetrated: the Celtic warrior-class in Ireland; the Roman patricians; the few Homeric heroes and the so-called pure Greeks; of later years; and the Aryans battling against the many natives in India.


The so-called pure Greeks were/are Mediterranean Greeks.

According to Peterson, the Greek aristocracy were seperated by caste-like stratification . . . from the freemen and slave classes among whom the genetic influence of the autochthonous 'Pelasgian' population may have predominated; (Peterson 1974).

There was no racial difference between the Greek aristocracy and the indigenous Pelasgians, both were for the most part Mediterranean/Alpine and was indigenous.

Also keep in mind, Greeks have 28% Near Eastern HG9 and 28% North African HG21. Much of this ancestry may date from the Neolithic, but it is curious that RM doesn't interpret this data to mean Greeks are 56% Hamito-Semitic and therefore very much less than pure European. As Day (2002) says: Genetically, Greek and Yugoslav populations are among the least typically 'European.

Greeks do not have much Near Eastern genes as well as North African genes that is abscent from Greece. All Europeans have some Near Eastern genes, so what? Greeks of course have nothing to do with hammito-semites or Near Easterns, the vast majority of the Greeks are pure Europeans.

http://hellas2010.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=raceandanthropology&action=display&thread=2&page=1

Update: In fact, new research is suggesting that much of the Neolithic ancestry in Greece represents gene flow from after the Neolithic.

You say so, prove it.

Greek Aristoi

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Demosthenes (c. 386-322 B.C.) "distinguished orator and Athenian patriot of the wealthy landowning Attic deme of Paeania."

Mediterranean.

Posted Image

Alkaios (c. 620-595 B.C.) "a member of the Aeolic nobility."

Mediterranean-Alpine.

Posted Image

Xenophon (c. 430-354 B.C.) "the member of a minor aristocratic Athenian family."

Mediterranean-Alpine.

Posted Image

Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.), "Historian and general of noble Attic blood on his father's side and aristocratic Thracian blood through his mother."

Mediterranean.

Posted Image

Euripides (c. 480-406 B.C.) "scion of a Salamis landowning family." Euripides "had a fair and freckled complexion."

Mediterranean-Dinaric.

Posted ImagePosted Image

Socrates (c. 469-399 B.C.) Not a member of the aristocracy. Stone cutter son of a sculptor and a midwife. Middle class. Alpine racial type.

Alpine. The most intelligent Greek ever. The greatest man of classical Athens. A martyr of philosophy.

None of them is nordic.

Members of aristocratic families are vastly overrepresented among notable Greeks of the classical period. Thus, when discussing the racial type of ancient Greeks, it is important to consider the racial type of the aristocracy. From the point of view of physical anthropology the ethnic complexity of Greek society during the first millennium B.C. prohibits any attempt at a generalized statement of physical type based upon statistical averages of data derived from the available skeletal material. Substantial caste-like stratification, accompanied by relatively strict principles of caste endogamy separated the Indo-European-derived Eupatrids from the freemen and slave classes among whom the genetic influence of the autochthonous 'Pelasgian' population may have predominated. (Peterson 1974)

The racial type of indigenous Pelasgians, of Eupatrids, freemen and of slave classes was the same. The rest are your theories.

Peterson notes that IE languages eventually came to be spoken by racially and genetically diverse peoples, but he suggests: In the course of some five or six millennia of expansion and conquest, an expanding IE upper caste may undoubtedly have preserved a high degree of genetic continuity (Pearson, 1974), while simply superimposing itself upon the autochthonous populations. Those who brought Indo-European speech into the newly-colonized territories became a ruling warrior nobility, as testified by the connotation 'noble' for arya in India and Persia, ariothez, in Greece (hence our 'aristocracy') and aire among the Celtic peoples. Indeed, the evidence-indicates that to a greater or lesser extent the invading arya, art, or aire maintained strict principles of endogamy in the choice of their official wives, and although in many areas they appear to have made a disproportionately high contribution to the gene pool of the indigenous population through the practice of keeping large numbers of concubines, they differed from the Uralic and Semitic peoples in their refusal to grant the illegitimate offspring of such marriages the social status of the father. Thus so far as legitimate offspring were concerned, in aristocratic Greek society, as in most early historic I.E. societies, the strict endogamy of the conquering classes was evidenced by the admission that 'we choose our wives like we choose our horses: by the lengths of their pedigrees' — and the high respect in which the Greeks held their horses is well known!

Indo-europeans never came in Greece because they didn't existed and the Aristocracy was of the similar racial type as the rest of Greeks. There never was an imajinery nordic Aristocracy.

Probably what you call "Indo-Europeans" were the Greek-Aryans at the time when they occupied the Balkan peninsula(Haimos):

http://dienekes.awardspace.com/articles/ieorigins/

According to Peterson:

The fact that the immigrant Indo-Europeans had a clear-cut conception of what they regarded as their own distinctive and characteristic physiognomy — which would have been preserved and even accentuated by close inbreeding — is amply evidenced by Greek literature. Thus in the Odyssey (XII, 222) we undersland that the disguised Athena was described as being 'delicate ol countenance such as are the sons of kings', whereas in the Iliad (II, 216) Thersites, of autochthonous origin, is described as 'ill-formed and warped of head'. . . .


Keep using the imaginery poetry of Homeros for describing the Greeks as a race.

Coon mentions:

Villains, comical characters, satyrs, centaurs, giants, and all unpleasant people and those not to be admired, are often shown in sculpture and in vase painting as broad-faced, snub-nosed, and heavily bearded. Socrates, who belonged to this type, was maliciously compared to a satyr. This type may still be found its Greece, and is an ordinary Alpine. In the early skeletal, remains it is represented by some of the brachycephalic crania.
Socrates, son of a sculptor and a midwife, was not an aristocrat.
The fact that his physical type was scorned by the aristocracy suggests that aristocrats were not Alpines, certainly not unmixed Alpines. Coon also notes that:" The racial type to which Socrates belonged [a racial type not favored by the Indo-European elite] is today the most important; racial type in Greece.


Now you will compare Socrates to the classical Aristocracy? Who is more important, a simple Aristocrat or a Philosopher?

Peterson suggests:

The Greeks shown above and right, descendants of ancient aristocratic families, illustrate Indo-European features.


Mediterranean and Alpine-Mediterranean features for the most part. That is what illustrate.

Needless to say, today you're more likely to see people who resemble the above in England or Sweden than in Greece.

You are more likely to see people who resemble them among Greeks as well. Swedish people have nothing to do with Mediterraneans, as for England, some of them are Mediterraneans.

Coon affirms:

. . . one is impressed, after looking at the portrait busts of Athenians, and the clay masks of Spartans, with their resemblance to present-day western Europeans. This resemblance becomes less marked in the art of the Byzantines, however, where modern near Eastern faces are more frequent; but the Byzantines lived mostly outside of Greece.


That is a mistake of C.Coon, ancient Greeks for the most part were Mediterraneans, the Spaniards for an example who are western Europeans do not look like ancient Greeks(only the Atlanto-Mediterraneans of Spain who according to C.Coon came from Asia Minor). C.Coon said that because he was a western European and he wanted to connect ancient Athenians and Spartans to western Europeans for obvious reasons. Let's just mention that 80 million of Americans have Greek genes, that is what I heard once. The Byzantines from the other hand were more original Mediterraneans(unmixed), while the Greeks of mainland Greece were mixed somehow with Alpine and some Dinaric elements. He also falls on contradiction when he says that: "It is inaccurate to say that the modern Greeks are different physically from the ancient Greeks; such a statement is based on an ignorance of the Greek ethnic character"."it is my personal reaction to the living Greeks that their continuity with their ancestors of the ancient world is remarkable, rather than the opposite", "The modern inhabitants of Greece itself differ surprisingly little from their classical predecessors.". Also J. Lawrence Angel had to say,"Racial continuity in Greece is striking.", "The similarity between the modern skeletal material and the ancient Greek is amazing.".

Angel (1945) confirms the presence of Nordic-Iranian types among the Iron age invaders of Greece, and their continuation as a minority in Athens into Classical times.

They always were an insignificant minority and they were not "nordic" but NORDIC-IRANIAN.

His data also suggest the presence of Corded Nordic and Nordic-Alpine types among the earlier, Bronze age invaders,

The few who came here, from Danube mostly, were just a very minority, the most of them were Corded Nordic as I have read.

and Angel mentions a Late Helladic Nordic-Iranian Mycenaean Athenian, who without much doubt . . . was a warrior. Nordic-Iranian types were present in Athens even into Late Hellenistic times.

Nordic-Iranian not nordic.

The lower strata of citizens likely would have been of autochthonous (rather than Indo-European) origin.

Upper and lower strata of citizens were of similar racial stock. Indo-Europeans never existed in fact and they never reached Greece.

The aristocracy were a small, isolated segment of the population, and many aristocratic families practiced cremation well into the Classical period; (Peterson 1974), severely limiting the usefulness of skeletal evidence in discussing the racial type of the aristocracy. But the evidence mentioned above is consistent with the idea that Nordic types would have been greatly overrepresented in the aristocracy, just as portraits suggest they were.

They were not, you confuse Nordic-Iranian and Meditewrranean-nordic type with the pure nordic type.

Incidentally, the practice of cremation is itself a clue. . . . cremation . . . was associated with pastoral-nomadic Nordic populations, for whom the soul might roam free in death as in life. Thus, the introduction of cremation into Greece was taken by many scholars as indicating the arrival of a new Nordic and nomadic population . . . (Hall 1997, 116)

This is untrue, the Greeks didn't need the pastoral-nomadic Nordics to teach them the cremation.

Whether cremation was introduced by some unknown, generalized ;'northern elements, or specifically by Dorian descendants of the cremation-practising Urnfield populations who occupied Illyria and Bosnia in the Late Bronze Age; (Hall 1997, 116-117), it is clear that cremation as practiced by the Greek aristocracy had its origin among Nordics.

No, the Greek Aristocracy was never Nordic and we did not take cremation from the barbarian nordics. Also the Dorian Greeks have nothing to do with nordics.

Pigmentation

Posted ImagePosted Image

Mosaics from Pella, Macedonia (4th c. BC), illustrating Hellenic pigmentation.

Illustrating the pigmentation of the few blond haired ancient Macedonians. The Hellenic pigmentation is only the standart Mediterranean pigmentation.

Coon observes that "blondism among the Greeks is mostly Nordic in origin".

Probably North Pontic Mediterranean, not nordic-barbarian.

Original Hellenic features may have persisted longer in Macedonia than in other parts of the Greek world, but there is reason to believe such features would have been largely preserved throughout the Greek aristocracy into relatively late times.

Original Hellenic features are the Mediterranean features and the Macedonians Aristocracy was not "nordic".

As for pigmentation, Coon (1939) tells us:

Greek literature and Greek art furnish an abundance of evidence as to the pigmentation and the characteristic facial features of the ancient inhabitants of Hellas. The Olympian gods, ancestors of the semi-heroes, were for the most part blond, with ivory shins and golden hair.


Where he saw that? Both semi-heros and the Olympian Gods represented as Mediterraneans never as "nordic", with dark hair and eyes and if one was "blond", or light brown haired, or light eyed this doesn't mean he was a nordic but light haired or light eyed Mediterranean, did you ever heard of the light haired & light eyed northern Pontic Mediterraneans?

Athene was gray eyed. Poseidon, however, was black haired [Note: Poseidon was derived from a pre-IE Mediterranean deity]. These gods were little different if we may believe Homer, from their descendants the heroes, most of whom were white limbed and golden haired.

Athena in fact described as a Mediterranean with blue eyes(some Greeks have blue eyes) but they never saw her, it's just fantasy. Where did you find that Poseidon was a pre-pseudo-IE Mediterranean deity that is still a question. Homeros never said that the Gods and the Heros were golden haired, he only said that, for some few Gods and Heros, just to hold the attention of his readers, 'cause the blond colour sound more strange and exotic, anyway his descriptions based in fantasy not in reality. Homeros never saw the heros or the Gods... besides that he was blind.

Day (2002) finds that:

Useful information about real rather than fictional Greeks comes from Polemon, the second most important Greek writer on physiognomy, who wrote as late as the second century A.D. Polemon explains that the pure Greek of his time has fair skin and red hair, and resembles the man inclined to literature and philosophy, who has fair skin and fairish hair. Polemon may have drawn these ideas from Pseudo-Aristotle, the most important Greek physiognomist, who in his third century B.C. Physiognomica declares that the most perfect male type is the lion with its fair mane.


Now you will use lions, tigers, snakes and other wild animals to describing the colours of the Greeks? Probably Polemon was fair skinned and light haired and he said that, obviously, for personal reasons. Greeks never looked like that. Why don't you use all other Greek writers who say that the Greeks had Mediterranean colours?

According to Angel, Nordic-Iranians were tall and muscular, strong-necked, and probably included tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets.

I liked that, "as well as brunets".

Angel also mentions the noteworthy resemblances of this type to Anglo-Saxons and the partial northwestern relations of this Greek type.

Angel must knew that Nordic-Iranians in ancient Greece were an insignificant minority, same goes for Mediterranean-nordic and the Alpine-nordic racial type (all those nordic elements were Hellenized elements by the original Hellenes who were of the Mediterranean racial stock). I will not speak of the resemblances between Nordic-Iranians and anglo-saxon nordics, they are different types anyway.

Modern Greeks are overwhelmingly dark-haired and rarely fair-skinned.

You are a liar, C.Coon: "About half of them have brunet-white or light brown skin color, the rest the usual pinkish-white of central and northern Europe;". The light brown skin colour is not natural as a lot have sun-tanned skin colour.

Have the Greeks changed since antiquity?

Of course.

According to the anthropologists, they haven't change.

Posted ImagePosted Image

Ancient vs. Modern: Dienekes Pontikos thinks these images are somehow equivalent. In fact, he's implied he believes the ancient Greek depicted here is swarthier than the modern Greek. Personally, I don't consider a sun tan to be the same thing as obvious non-European ancestry.

Who told you that the first image is "sun-tanned", perhaps he is not and the modern Greek of course looks whiter, as the first image shows a man who has dark brown skin colour, we are not blind. There are some few Greeks with Arab admixture but who cares anyway.

The old aristocracy, responsible for much of the greatness of ancient Greece, certainly no longer exists.

What the Aristocracy did? The Aristocracy just involved in politics not science or art.

That, in itself, is a big enough change. Even the peasants have changed,

You say so.

though the exact degree to which the Greek goatherd of today is descended from the ancient Greek goatherd is an open question.

For nordicists like you, not for scientists and anthropologists, for those, they came from the Greek antiquity.

Everyone knows about the major Slavic and Albanian influxes into Greece.

Slav-speaking Balkanians(mostly Mediterraneans) and Arvanites(mostly Mediterraneans & Alpines) were a very minority, they didn't change us because we were the vast majority, most of them assimilated. We mixed them, not they us.

As Paul Theroux puts it:

The Greeks had not taken very much interest in their past until Europeans became enthusiastic discoverers and diggers of their ruins.


The Greeks back then had other problems, freedom for an example and poverty, but they always considered their selves as descendants of the ancient Greeks as well.

And why should they have cared? The Greeks were not Greek, but rather the illiterate descendants of Slavs and Albanian fishermen, who spoke a debased Greek dialect and had little interest in the broken columns and temples except as places to graze their sheep. (Pillars of Hercules, 315-316)

A big Bravo to Paul Theroux..."The Greeks were not Greek", the Greeks were Greeks as well, they spoke Greek and they had Greek traditions. The Slav-speaking Balkanians and the Arvanites you talking about were a small minority that assimilated and disappeared. Besides the fact that the Arvanites were mostly Mediterraneans racially and C.Coon connected them to the Greeks as well.

Given the movement of large numbers of Greeks into Anatolia during the Byzantine era, and the movements of Albanians and Slavs into Greece, it is always possible that a given Turk has as much or more classical Greek ancestry as a given modern Greek. And, there is always the strong possibility of a Turkic contribution to the Greek gene pool.

Untrue, the minorities you talking about were very small to change anyone. As for the Turkic contribution to the Greek gene pool, western Turks for the most part are turkified ancient Hellenes in fact. Also you must know that when you say "turkic" you mean mongoloid.

As for the "Turks", they are mixed with us not we with them.

From Greece analyzed the genetic makeup of 143 men. Particular attention was Investigation of haplogroups E and J of chromosome Y. We transmitted our genetic code and the rest of Europe. Of particular importance is the fact that the investigation had not revealed mongolic source of the DNA of the Greeks. That is important, because the Turks had occupied Greece for 400 years and everyone expected that there would be some relationship of DNA two peoples. And, yet, has not affected one iota. With 400 years of slavery we expected that there would be some Mongolian signature. Not found something and not just talking about a study talking about the results of other 7 studies, several researchers who make this result. Specifically, 925 Samples of Greek men, shows that only 0.4% of Greeks are not Caucasian. It does not change it for anything. The Greeks are Caucasian race.

http://prostinalithia.blogspot.com/2008/04/dna.html

There has been gene flow into Greece from from Negroids and Mongoloids (see below), the extent of which is not easy to quantify at this time.

Untrue. Negroids never existed in Greece and the number of mongoloids is completly insignificant.

However, absorption of genes from the Near East and North Africa likely happened on a much larger scale than the absorption of non-Caucasoid genes;

Untrue. According to the geneticists Near Eastern genes to the Greeks is not much. The Near easterns from the other hand are between two worlds, the European and the Arab world. Again they are mixed with us and other Europeans. Greeks for the most part are Europeans, you like it or you don't like it.

and this recent non-European Caucasoid admixture may be more significant than non-Caucasoid admixture when discussing changes in the racial character of the Greek nation.

The non-Caucasoid or mongoloid admixture in Greece is insignificant. Also we don't have negroids in Greece.

Richards et al. (2002) find a very high frequency (~20%) of recent gene flow in eastern Mediterranean Europe. The Near Easterners form a clear group, distinct from Europeans.

Wrong, they are almost half Europeans or even more, see Lebanon for an example.

The central and eastern Mediterranean populations of Europe, along with southeastern Europe, although positioned more closely to the other European populations, also show affinities with the Near East, but western Mediterranean Europe clusters with central and northern Europe. . . .

It's because Near Easterns have a lot of south-Eastern European genes.

The southeast-northwest clines in classical marker frequencies have been interpreted, by comparison with radiocarbon evidence, as representing a substantial demic diffusion of Near Eastern farming communities into Europe in the early Neolithic period (Sokal et al. 1991; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

Their numbers were insignificant as well.

Angel (1945) sees evidence of an immigration trend, continuing from Roman times through Byzantine times and later, that brought Mediterranean, Eastern Alpine, and Armenoid elements [from the Near East, one presumes] by sea, and [Slavic speaking, in Byzantine times] Alpine and Dinaric elements from the north.

The Armenoid elements to the Greek population are very small, as for the other elements, they were few and assimilated.

Angel also believes that in Classical times, Athens absorbed a large population of slaves and metics.

The Metics of Athens were 100% Greek racially, from other Greek city-states and the biggest part of the slaves were Greeks too, few were from non-Greek nations.

Obviously, the Greek gene pool has received a great deal of outside input, which makes sense, based on Greece's location and history.

You say so, obviously.

Angel tries to stress the continuity of the Athenian people,

He is an Anthropologist not a nordicist like you.

but it's hard to see what's so continuous about an originally Mediterranean population

The statues, show for the population of Ancient Athens a Mediterranean-Alpine mix, not a Mediterranean.

which today is brachycephalic and largely Alpine,

Ancient Greek Mediterraneans of the classical period for the most part were brachycephals, like modern Greeks are and this have nothing to do with Alpines.

and in which an important minority racial element of earlier times has essentially disappeared. It should be understood that when Angel speaks of continuity, he merely means that racial change in Greece is gradual, rather than sharp. In this sense, one could just as easily stress the racial continuity of Arabs as they gradually absorbed large numbers of sub-Saharan slaves.

You say so not the scientific world. You are wrong. According to Angel: "Racial continuity in Greece is striking."

Aris Poulianos

http://www.aee.gr/english/4greeks_origin/greeks_origin.html

Grecocentric anthropologist Aris Poulianos makes stronger claims than Angel about Greek continuity, insisting on the incessant biological continuity of the Greeks all through the historic and prehistoric epochs, which refer at least to the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic periods (15.000-30.000 years). Poulianos's work is discredited by statements such as: . . . continuity is . . . proved by the comparison of measurements of the contemporary inhabitants with those of the ancient skulls of Greece, which statistically show no differences . . .

He knows what he talking about, learn from him you nordicists.

As Angel's work shows -- and as common sense dictates -- the racial composition of Greece has changed quite markedly over time;

The change is only in quantity and numbers. According to Angel: "Racial continuity in Greece is striking."

and the genetic evidence proves that significant Neolithic and later gene flow has occured in Greece.

Neolithic is just a period it doesn't mean "middle Eastern", it has to do with neolithic northern Europeans too. Later gene flow never occured in Greece, at least in great numbers.

If Poulianos is unable to detect differences between ancient and modern Greeks, his techniques are flawed.

You say so, you are not a scientist like he is, you are a simple nordicist. There are not differences between ancient and modern Greeks as well.

Poulianos's credibility is further undermined by his bizarre assertions concerning linguistics.

His credibility and assertions concerning linguistics are just fine.

We must indirectly admit that [the Sarakatsanees] also have the most ancient language, because their ancestors always spoke..and spoke only Greek for the last tenths of thousand years..50, 60, 70, perhaps even 100.

Their Greek dialect(language) cames from the pre-history as well.

On the contrary, the Indoeuropean theory only covers the last four thousand years. But even before the Indoeuropeans, didn't the inhabitants of this country speak for so many thousands of years? Aren't the living Sarakatsanees the proof today? Needless to say, no mainstream Western scholar would support Poulianos's linguistic theories.

So what, he is free to say his opinion as a scientist that he is. Same goes for Greeks, no Greek-patriot will ever accept your "indo-germanic" theories.

However, Poulianos's work was warmly received in the Soviet Union. This is unsurprising: Poulianos did his doctoral dissertation at the University of Moscow;

He also studied anthropology in America as well. "Aris Poulianos studied biology at the City University of New York between 1948 and 1952."

and with his fantasies of Greek-speaking Neanderthals,

They were, you like it or you don't like it. Perhaps they didn't spoke Greek but they used many proto-Greek words.

Poulianos is simply taking Soviet-style theories of ethnogenesis to their ridiculous extreme.

He also studied anthropology in America, so why he don't take SIONIST-JEWISH-AMERICAN & NORDICIST theories to their ridiculous extreme.

In the final analysis, Poulianos is a crank,

And you are anti-scientific and a nordicist who attack scientists.

of little interest to anyone but Greek nationalists and Stalinist archaeologists. A page promoting The Origin of the Greeks is able to report that hundreds of Eastern bloc state scientists fully agreed with the scientific views of Mr. Aris. Poulianos, underlining the seriousness of the research, but the only Western scientist they can cite as having supported him is J.L. Angel. While it's true that Angel penned a perhaps under-critical review of Poulianos's book in AJPA, this friend of Poulianos nevertheless found The Origin of the Hellenes to be an unsystematic work, which omits half the relevant literature, tends to overvalue speculations based on small samples and leaves a number of loose ends. On a positive note, Angel believes Poulianos's use of slang and everyday Greek instead of stuffy scientific language should help to popularize anthropology in Greece, in spite of three or four quotations from Stalin, Marx, and Engels.

A lot non-Greek anthropologists and a lot non-Stalinist archaeologists have praise him as well.

An example: "The skull has been dated to be at least 700,000 years old by two German scientists, anthropologist E. Breitinger and palaeontologist O. Sickenberg. Poulianos has claimed that this discovery renders the Indo-European theory obsolete.". Also when you read something concerning Anthropology you must listen first to the local Anthropologists and scientists, than listening to your own selves and your imaginery western pseudo-theories.

http://en.nikaria.gr/pages/Aris_Poulianos.html

Incidentally, one of Poulianos's chief aims seems to have been to refute Fallmerayer's theory that modern Greeks are mostly descended from Slavs and Albanians.

They are not. The slav-speaking Balkanians(Mostly Mediterraneans) and Arvanites(mostly Mediterraneans & Alpines) didn't mixed the Greeks, as the Greeks were the vast majotity and those the very minority.

However:

The same study indicated that the Albanian-speaking, Slav-speaking (Monte Negro included) as well as Valaches (Vlachi) of the greater Macedonian region.


Scopjan not "Macedonian", learn history.

are in their majority also autochthonous and therefore the influences from abroad mainly concerns the adoption of the chronologically younger languages, which are in use today. If this is the case, then it seems Poulianos can prove nothing about the degree to which Byzantine-era Slavic-speakers contributed to the modern Greek population.

Those Slavic-speaking Balkanians were not Slavs racially, they assimilated and dissapeared as well.

Whether or not these Slavic-speakers had predominantly autochthonous origins in the Balkans is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, they were for the most part autochthonous.

They were still not the same people as the ancient Greeks.

They assimilated as well and their number was very small. The vast majority assimilated the small minority. Such things happened in ancient Greece all the time.

As well, looking at averages for the population as a whole obscures the fact that a disproportionate share of Greek contributions came from a numerically unimportant, genetically isolated, and racially distinct minority.

A number of them assimilated, but the greatest part of them still lives isolated in minorities. Especially Vlahs.

The source of classical Greek achievement

Angel mentions Blegen's model of fusion of diverse material, social, and even psychological elements to form the culture of Classical Athens. Blegen is correct that Athenian cultural achievement owed something to the fusion of cultures. But, the key elements that seperated Greek thought and achievement from those of earlier civilizations originated with the Indo-Europeans:

Indo-germanics never existed and nordic tribes never invated Greece as well. The achievements of classical Greece came from the ancient Greek people and their descendants, the modern Greeks, not from barbarian nordics who try to steal our history & culture.

While Egyptians and Babylonians collected a great deal of information about mathematics and astronomy and practiced impressive engineering on a grand scale, their sciences never had a really scientific basis. Their knowledge existed either as the lore collected by the priests or as the products of practical trial-and-error.

The civilizations of Egyptians and of Babylonians found by Greeks too. I can give you the names of many ancient Greek mathematicians and astronomers but there is not even one name of an Egyptian and Babylonian mathematician or astronomer.

Only the Indo-European Greeks actually systematized scientific and mathematical knowledge, and they were able to construct it into a system because the system itself was their concept of a Cosmic Order in which all events and phenomena were related through causality and its inexorable linkages of one event and phenomenon to another. . . .

Again and again with this pseudo-theory of the Indo-skandinavian barbarians.

It is no accident, wrote V. Gordon Childe, that the first great advances towards abstract natural science were made by the Aryan Greeks and the Hindus, not by the Babylonians or the Egyptians, despite their great material resources and their surprising progress in techniques – in astronomical observation for example. . . . (Clark 1996)

Thank you for calling ancient Greek Mediterraneans and Alpines as Aryans.

Inspired by Blegen's model of the fusion of cultures, Angel looks to blending of racial types as one of the real and probably indispensable little factors which help produce a great people and which underlie the whole history of civilization. What this theory ignores is the major role played by the endogamous aristocracy in Greek achievement.

The achievements of ancient Greeks didn't came from the Aristocracy but from its scientists and artists, the Aristocrats just involved in politics.

Since Classical times, Greece has received even more outside genetic input and has become even more blended.

Untrue. Greece didn't received even more outside genetic input and did not become even more blended, small minorities assimilate and disappear.

If this is the key to greatness, why has Greece been going downhill since the Classical age?

Because the Romans appeared in history, that's why. Did you ever heard of the Byzantine Empire? Who has been going downhill since the Classical age? No one. We also contributed to the Roman civilization as well, without Greeks there is not Roman Empire.

Murphy (1941) takes a similar view to Angel's, but acknowledges another factor:

Wave after wave of Alpines and Mediterraneans continued to arrive in Greece from Roman times onward. But blending with these new arrivals never produced an efflorescence.


You don't have any proofs that this ever happened, Alpines and Mediterraneans were indigenous in Greece, they didn't arrive from anywhere. On the contrary, they moved from Greece and arrived in other countries, as colonists too.

W.D. Hamilton's (1975) theory is preferrable to that of Angel:

The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).


Renaissance born in Europe because Greeks of the Byzantine Empire(after the fall of Constantinoupolis) moved there and gave their lights on civilization. Without Greeks there is no renaissance.

The peak of Greek civilization was only reached after the ingredient of progress had been introduced by the Indo-European invaders. By the time complete mediocrity set in, the disproportionately Nordic and Indo-European-descended aristocracy had all but disappeared.

Wrong, the Greeks had many civilizations that reached the peak you talking about, before the cataclysms. We never needed the imaginery indo-europeans or the unexisted nordics in Greece to built our civilization. Also the peak of Greek Athenian civilization came from his leader, Perikles, who was a typical Mediterranean Greek, not from imaginery nordics.

Lundman agrees that:

The racial structure of the old historical European peoples - the Greeks, Romans, and Celts - has been treated at length in my book Geographische Anthropologie (1967). Certainly, these peoples had, at least in their upper social strata, stronger Nordic components than the present inhabitants of these lands.


Never, in the case of Greece there was just some assimilated elements in the form of Iranian-Nordic, Mediterranean-Nordic, and Alpine-Nordic. Pure Nordic types never existed, they always were an insignificant minority as well as the other nordic elements .

Roger Pearson (1991) has suggested the possibility that Europe has suffered a severe dysgenic decline over the past two thousand years. If this is true, Greece, which today has perhaps the lowest average IQ in Europe, may have been particularly hard hit.

Make dreams.

Greek IQ :

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

On the other hand, it may well be that only the elite classes in ancient Greece were exceptionally intelligent.

Yes, the lower classes where the poor Socrates and many other philosophers belonged were unindelligent and the only intelligent were the unexisted nordics. Nordics always were barbarians and you learnt everything about civilization from the Romans, and with their turn, they learnt everything concerning civilization by the Greeks as well.

And, when the elites died out or were absorbed by the much more numerous masses, the intellectual power of Greece was dissipated.

There never was a "nordic-barbarian-elite" in Greece. Also Aristotelis as a teacher of Alexander the great, gave birth to the Alexandrian Empire, after the supposed dissipated intellectual power of Greece.

Edited by Hellenas, Oct 12 2011, 10:59 PM.
Carleton Stevens Coon "...since from the mythical days of the Argonauts to the present, neither the peninsula of Hellas nor Ionia and the Aegean Islands have been large enough to hold the far-wandering Hellenes."
http://hellas2010.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=raceandanthropology

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4046437/1/