Makedonians were not Greek?

sylla1 said:

As you can see, AJ and you may disagree (even if hardly the nice archaeological website linked by her).

Click to expand...

Obviously I did not! Myceneans did not need to come from somewhere else.

Thessalonian said:

Obviously I did not! Myceneans did not need to come from somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Thess; .... sapiens appeared in Africa. Rings any bell?

What you may mean is that the Mykenaean culture might have been born (or not) in situ (i.e., in the territory of modern Greece).

sylla1 said:

Thess; .... sapiens appeared in Africa. Rings any bell?

What you may mean is that the Mykenaean culture might have been born (or not) in situ (i.e., in the territory of modern Greece).

Click to expand...

.... Sapiens appeared in Europe too. You should know that.

Thessalonian said:

.... Sapiens appeared in Europe too. You should know that.

Click to expand...

I give up .

Sylla1, instead of giving up, open your mind to less revisionist and afrocentric theories.

The regional continuity model (or multiregional evolution model) advocated by Milford Wolpoff, of the University of Michigan, proposes that modern humans evolved more or less simultaneously in all major regions of the Old World from local archaic humans. For example, modern Chinese are seen as having evolved from Chinese archaic humans and ultimately from Chinese .... erectus. This would mean that the Chinese and some other peoples in the Old World have great antiquity in place. Supporters of this model believe that the ultimate common ancestor of all modern people was an early .... erectus in Africa who lived at least 1.8 million years ago. It is further suggested that since then there was sufficient gene flow between Europe, Africa, and Asia to prevent long-term reproductive isolation and the subsequent evolution of distinct regional species. It is argued that intermittent contact between people of these distant areas would have kept the human line a single species at any one time. However, regional varieties, or subspecies, of humans are expected to have existed.

Evolution of Modern Humans:* Early Modern .... sapiens

It is possible for a .... erectus to appear in Africa, 2 million years ago (although this is only a hypothesis) but .... Sapiens appeared in various places, at the same time. The Petralona skull, in Greece, is only one example...

anniversary

That's the kind of information that revisionists try to ignore...

Thessalonian said:

Sylla1, instead of giving up, open your mind to less revisionist and afrocentric theories.

The regional continuity model (or multiregional evolution model) advocated by Milford Wolpoff, of the University of Michigan, proposes that modern humans evolved more or less simultaneously in all major regions of the Old World from local archaic humans. For example, modern Chinese are seen as having evolved from Chinese archaic humans and ultimately from Chinese .... erectus. This would mean that the Chinese and some other peoples in the Old World have great antiquity in place. Supporters of this model believe that the ultimate common ancestor of all modern people was an early .... erectus in Africa who lived at least 1.8 million years ago. It is further suggested that since then there was sufficient gene flow between Europe, Africa, and Asia to prevent long-term reproductive isolation and the subsequent evolution of distinct regional species. It is argued that intermittent contact between people of these distant areas would have kept the human line a single species at any one time. However, regional varieties, or subspecies, of humans are expected to have existed.

Evolution of Modern Humans:* Early Modern .... sapiens

Click to expand...

Thessalonian said:

anniversary

That's the kind of information that revisionists try to ignore...

Click to expand...

.... hellenicus???

With all due respect, discussing human evolution (especially evolutionary revisionism) in detail may be a bit too much for this humble thread (Makedonians were not Greek?)

Let just say (for the sake of your argument) that even Wolpoff's model explicitly admits Africa as the universal ultimate source of any human migration.

Again, rings any bells?

I am not aware of .... Hellenicus. Care to elaborate?
I hear the bells of assumptions, speculations and hypothesis. No serious scientist can ever be SURE of what happened 2 million years ago, in terms of anthropological evolution. They only suggest that the first monkey-humans came from Africa. They could come from Australia for all I care.
The only thing that is CERTAIN and VERIFIED with solid EVIDENCE, is that humans lived in Europe since AT LEAST 700,000 years ago.
Therefore, .... Sapiens did not originate from Africa. What COULD have originated from Africa, is the ancestor of .... neanderthalensis.

The Neanderthal (short for Neanderthal Man, in English pronounced [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English"]/niːˈændərtɑːl/[/ame], /niːˈændərθɔːl/) or /neɪˈændərtɑːl/; in modern orthography Neandertal) is an extinct member of the .... genus that is known from [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene"]Pleistocene[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimen"]specimens[/ame] found in Europe and parts of western and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia"]central Asia[/ame]. Neanderthals are either classified as a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies"]subspecies[/ame] (or race) of modern [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human"]humans[/ame] (.... sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species"]species[/ame] (.... neanderthalensis).[1]
The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.[2] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenetics"]phenetic[/ame] 'species', [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis"].... heidelbergensis[/ame], or a migrant form, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis"].... rhodesiensis[/ame].


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal]Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Thessalonian said:

The Neanderthal (short for Neanderthal Man, in English pronounced /niːˈændərtɑːl/, /niːˈændərθɔːl/) or /neɪˈændərtɑːl/; in modern orthography Neandertal) is an extinct member of the .... genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies (or race) of modern humans (.... sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate human species (.... neanderthalensis).[1]
The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.[2] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another phenetic 'species', .... heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, .... rhodesiensis.


Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Deukalion & Pyrrha, you mean?

sylla1 said:

Deukalion & Pyrrha, you mean?

Click to expand...

Thessalonian said:

Click to expand...

Well, at some point he became the most powerful man of this Planet; he should have done something right .

Thessalonian said:

And perhaps they were there since 10.000 BC, moved to the north and then returned as the Heracleides. How about that? How could you possibly tell if early Greeks were Indo-Europeans or Euro-europeans or any other "clan" or "race" or whatever? Those speculations are meaningless. And then you say that those migrants were Indo-Europeans, not Greeks!!!!! What on Earth is that supposed to mean? Where were the Greeks from? The outer space?

Click to expand...

OMG! I know you do not believe in the Indo-European Hypothesis, allthough, as i could hear from you, have no idea about it. Do you want to refute linguistic families? There are different theories about the origins of PIE, but there aren't really scientist seriously arguing against it as theory at all. And do you now want to tell us, that greeks lived there since 10000BC?

What does it mean, if i name these invaders Indo-European and not Greeks? Sorry, but I really have to think about what to answer. Do you think you're created by Jahwe or perhaps zeus? Do you think during the Neolithicum existed big states and empires? The people of that eras lived in small units and interacted. They formed sometimes bigger groups, disintegrated and formed new groups. That's the same with Indo-europeans. Of course we don't know what exactly happened. We just know a few things and have to speculate, but not into the blue air, but speculations by observation. At a special time, perhaps the 5th millenium, these population started with several waves to the East and west. Sometimes you can find a map in some publications, i unfortunately couldn't find in the internet. This map show the supposed indo-european area and divided this into the regions of the several linguistic families, arranged by the linguistic difference between the several families. perhaps you have seen this map. But this map is wrong, but as it seems in the heads of many people. Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Italians and greeks and all the others didn't migrated as people, but indo-european groups migrated to these areas and formed there new communities, ethnic groups and tribes. I wrote it in several threads. Celts e.g. exist since the 8th or perhaps 5th century, Germanics originated somewhere between the 6th and 3rd century and Slavs probably originated around 200 AD. Of course they did not come from outer space, but from former, older units. That's the same with the Greeks. So the story of the Ionians, Aiolians and Achaians wo migrated to Greece contains a bit of truth. Different indo-european groups migrated to the Greek peninsula and generated a new ethnos, the Mycenians or if you like, the mycenian Greeks.
These indo-europeans lived somewhere on the balkans, because there are similar linguistic structures with the indo-arian languages, but in opposite to them, did the greek not participate in the satemisation.

Thessalonian said:

Greece was inhabitated since for ever. Ruins of hunting populations since 8000 BC and remains of human skeletons (.... sapiens in Petralona cave) dating back to prehistory.

Click to expand...

On the small territory of my little village, just 3000 inhabitants, there were relicts found from 8000 BC till today. We are speaking a germanic language, ergo, those guys 10.000 years ago must be germanic too, or probably german.

Thessalonian said:

Aris Poulianos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I quote this part:

According to Poulianos, the Petralona Cave was accidentally discovered in 1959 by local villagers searching for a spring in the mountainside.[3] The Petralona skull, specifically, was discovered in 1960 when it was removed from a rock in the cave. Early estimates at the time placed the age of the hominid remains to around 70,000 years old.[4] Poulianos would ultimately study the remains, name the hominid Archanthropus europeaus petraloniensis, and estimate its age to be around 700,000 years old.[5]
During the 1980s, the age of the Petralona hominid estimated by Poulianos was challenged by an article in Nature. The scientists involved used electron spin resonance measurements and ultimately dated the age of the skull to between 160,000 and 240,000 years old.[6] However, Poulianos states that his excavations in the cave since 1968 provide evidence of human occupation from the Pleistocene era.[7] The Petralona hominid, specifically, was located in a stratigrahic layer containing the most amount of tools and traces of habitation. Poulianos states that the age of the overall layer is approximately 670,000 years old based on electron spin resonance measurements.[7] Further excavations at Petralona revealed two human skeletons that press reports claimed to be 800,000 years old.[8]
Today, most academians having analyzed the Petralona remains classify the hominid as .... erectus.[9] However, the Archanthropus of Petralona has also been classified as a Neanderthal (.... sapiens neanderthalensis) and as an early generic class of .... sapiens. Paleoanthropologists, on the other hand, agree that the Petralona cranium is derived from a unique class of hominids different from .... erectus.[10]
Despite the controversial age of Archanthropus europeaus petraloniensis, other discoveries made in recent decades (i.e. Thessalian lithics) prove that Greece was inhabited 300,000-400,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

It's correct, scientists date the petralona cranium between 70.000 and 700.000 years back. Surprisingly some greeks believe in the oldest date!
But as you said, ESR measuring gives a date between 160 and 240ky. A work about it is, Xirotiris, N., Henke, W. & Hennig, H. (1982): Die phylogenetische Stellung des Petralona-Schädels aufgrund computertomographischer Analysen und der absoluten Datierung mit der ESR-Methode. In: Eiben, O. (ed.) Proceedings of the Centennial Anthropological Congress, Budapest, pp. [1 - 6].
It is correct, that scientists are not sure, where they have to classify the Petralona-cranium. As it seems is it a very progressiv form of .... ergaster or his european version and close to the heidelbergensis. Interesting is, that petralona shows similarities with findings in tautavel.

Thessalonian said:

In September 1995, Poulianos presented a calcified tibia found in Triglia, Chalkidiki, which he claimed belonged to a .... erectus form he termed .... erectus trilliensis, and which he dated to 11 million years before the present. Poulianos believes that his discovery may challenge the Out of Africa theory regarding human evolution!!!

Click to expand...

Yes of course 11 my! Probably the oldest greek!

Anna James said:

I don't prefer them, I love Strabo. If I didn't site it here, it's because the e-text I have is terrible to research for quoting, because the chapters are not numbered. Everyone who ever wrote history had his reason to write what they did, and a viable historic theory should explain as many of the different sources and archeological evidence as possible; which doesn't include just ignoring them, when unconvenient.
The archeological facts speak very loud and clear, so to discard them, when you dont'y accept the version of a particular historian is simply not fair.

Click to expand...

So if you love strabon, why do you completely ignore him here?
Your archaeolgical artefacts from Aiani say nothing about the Macedonians and Emathia.

Anna James said:

We don't know if the Myceneans migrated to Greece at all, all the theories about migration from somewhere are very problematical. They may have been homegrown. And what is you version about the Indo-Europeans? The Greek language is accepted to be Indo-European, so why do you say "Indo-European, not Greeks"?

Click to expand...

I answered that two posts before. But short again, Greeks evolved from Indo-Europeans, they didn't exist since Adam and eve.

Anna James said:

If the area was Greek from the Mycenean time, with the artifacts Mycenean, this means that the Macedonians, never mind if they came form Argos, or were homegrown there, were Greek anyway; since the invading Ind-Europeans who brought the Greek-Indo-European language with them, and the Myceneans and whoever were already in Greece mixed to form what we know now as Greeks.

Click to expand...

First of all and again, Aiani and the Elimiotis was conquered by Makedonians. So a in the 4th century conquered country can't prove the greekness of another in the 5th or before.
Second, who knows if they brought the greek language with them? greek can originated on the greek peninsula, isn't it?

Anna James said:

And I cannot understand why "Aiani is not Emathia"? Last time you claimed that the Macedonians are not Greek because the ordinary people weren't, only the dynasty; not, when it comes out that the area of Emathia was Greek since 14 century BC, and Helladic from 2000 BC, all of a sudden this that the area was Greek doesn't matter because the Macedonians came later? Sorry, but I start thinking that Emilio Primo is very right.

Click to expand...

Because Elimiotis is not Emathia, like Washington isn't Houston! and Aiani is Elimiotis, not Emathia. and especially the region all around emathia is desribed as populated by Non-Greeks.

Anna James said:

And how is the archeological find in one area saying nothing for the area?

Click to expand...

Who said this? If I find a spanish canon in Alamo, it doesn't proof, that people in Chicago are Spanish. A spanish canon in Alamo is just evidence for spanish attendence in Alamo or perhaps even just for the attendance of a spanish canon.

Anna James said:

All our archeological evidence is taken to mean something for the area. Can you say that the Romans never had Britain as colony, because the Roman cities there don't mean anything for the area? Or, do you say that Rome itself was the only place where the Roman lived, Athens the only one Greek polic and anything around it was, what....Chinese? If one starts using the standards we are giving here, we won't have no history, and no archeology, since everything means nothing. Of course, the best would be some wizard to lift all the dirt from the whole territory of modern Greece, so you can verify every inch of dirt being inhabited on by Greeks; but this is not going to happen. So, if you want to play this sophisticated game, we may start talking only about the very recent history of say, the last 30 years or so, so you can personally verify what was what, and who lived where...since there are no sources, everyone lived later than the events they wrote about, and the archeology doesn't mean anything, since the digs can verify only the speck of dirt they are found on.

Click to expand...

The rules of the forum prevent me from a comment to this.

Thessalonian said:

I am afraid that .... sapiens was very much evident in Europe.
Check out Petralona Cave, Macedonia (Greece).

Click to expand...

Yes and his brain had 1200ccm........

Thessalonian said:

How can humans originate from Africa, when human skeletons dating back to 500.000 BC are found in Europe?

Click to expand...

How can people talk about things, they don't know?
First of all, all the species are palaeo-species. That means, that .... erectus isn't necessarily a different biological specie to .... sapiens and as well different .... sapiens subspecies can be biological species. This is a result of the lack of genetic material and the ability to say, whether they were able to produce fertile descendents or not.
.... sapiens originated in Africa around 600ky to 500ky BP. His members are represented by Kabwe, Bodo, saldanha, Ndutu, Eiyasi and Sale. This group is called "early archaic .... sapiens". A more modern archaic group is represented by Laetoli, Eliye Springs and Florisbad. Modern .... sapiens is e.g. represented by Omo, Skhul and Qafzeh.
Your petralona skull is probably related to the early archaic group and belongs to the group of .... heidelbergensis.

Thessalonian said:

The multiregional hypothesis, initially proposed by Milford Wolpoff, holds that the evolution of humans from H. erectus at the beginning of the Pleistocene 1.8 million years BP to the present day has been within a single, continuous worldwide population. Proponents of multiregional origin reject the assumption of an infertility barrier between ancient Eurasian and African populations of ..... Multiregional proponents point to the fossil record and genetic evidence in chromosomal DNA. One study suggested that at least 5% of the human modern gene pool can be attributed to ancient admixture, which in Europe would be from the Neanderthals.[46]
A recently discovered fossilized mandible that is putatively a hybrid between .... sapiens and an earlier hominid, that is likely to be 110,000 years old, has been interpreted as a challenge to the recent out-of-Africa hypothesis.

Click to expand...

The theory of walpoff is really interesting. But what he can't show is, how the Mongolides derived from .... erectus forms or from those of dali and Maba/Mapa. Especially the late Erectus in SouthEast Asia makes it impossible, that e.g. the Aboriginies evolved from .... erectus. Surprisingly did walpoff not place the neanderthaliens into the ancestral lineage of the Europeans. Ths would be especially difficult, because we find both species temporarily mixed in Europe and the Near East. E.g. do we have sapiens between 120ky and 75ky in the levante and from 75ky to 45ky neanderthalides (Shanidar) and after it again sapiens.

Thessalonian said:

The multiregional hypothesis is a scientific model that provides an explanation for the pattern of human evolution. The hypothesis holds that humans first arose near the beginning of the Pleistocene two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses archaic human forms such as .... erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern .... sapiens sapiens. The theory contends that humans evolve through a combination of adaptation within various regions of the world and gene flow between those regions. Proponents of multiregional origin point to fossil and genomic evidence as support for their hypothesis.
The primary alternative hypothesis is recent African origin of modern humans, which contends that modern humans arose in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace archaic human forms without interbreeding.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE] The genetics shows, that the Out-of-Africa-theory is correct. The modern .... sapiens left Africa during the Eem-stadial untilthe last glacial cut the connection between africa and the rest of the world around 70/75ky ago.

Thessalonian said:

Right, sylla1. Myceneans came from..... elsewhere. But Egyptians, Chinese, Sumerians, Babylonians, Indians etc. were always there, homegrown? Where did they come from? Africa maybe? This is not a serious discussion anymore.

Click to expand...

If your last sentence is meaning you, perhaps. Who said that only Greeks migrated and all others are homegrown?

Anna James said:

Why are we to use here double standards, when it comes to the finds in Aiani, or anywhere in Greece? I'm not going to use double standards here, this is a site as everyone else everywhere else. If the question who the Macedonians were and from where they came became controversial, it is due to political reasons /Greece and FYROM/, not historical, archeological, culturological and anthropological; and politics has a way of twisting things in one or another direction.

Click to expand...

May I remind you, that no FYROMs are participating in this thread as far as I know! The only group that is participating here, and is part of the terrible discussions in the www, are some greeks! So if you want to blame somebody for political interests, i could make you an suggestion.

Thessalonian said:

It is possible for a .... erectus to appear in Africa, 2 million years ago (although this is only a hypothesis) but .... Sapiens appeared in various places, at the same time. The Petralona skull, in Greece, is only one example...

Click to expand...

this is nonsense!