The Illyrians

[Philosopher]

I'll start with the last. This is your quote:

"Clade E3b1 lineages, which were frequent in the Greeks but not in Pakistan, were nevertheless observed in two Pathan individuals, one of whom shared a 16 Y-STR haplotype with the Greeks. The worldwide distribution of a shortened (9 Y-STR) version of this haplotype, determined from database information, was concentrated in Macedonia and Greece, suggesting an origin there. Although based on only a few unrelated descendants, this provides strong evidence for a European origin for a small proportion of the Pathan Y chromosomes."

Would you please explain it?

Sure.

First, that statement was made by Stanford University in conjunction with a hospital in Athens, Greece. They are the scientists. If you disagree with that conclusion, you should contact them and explain to them why that statement is invalid.

Second, this genetic study sought to measure a specific gene in the Pathan population and it is found in the Balkans.

Most population studies have hundreds of volunteers, and when all these studies are amassed, we are talking about thousands of individuals.

This is called sampling. This is how scientific studies are conducted.

What you are asking for is something not found in any other scientific test. You are asking for everyone to be genetically tested. This is not possible. And it is an invalid argument to make.

And about Herodotus too if you don't mind.

I was very clear. Herodotus excludes Macedonia as outside of Greece, and the Macedonians were not regarded as Greek speakers. Herodotus does not state this, but it is the only logical inference.

Please provide evidence otherwise.

[spitfire]

I see. Those two out of we don't know how many that were tested in that same study, had it, and therefore it applies to thousands. Sure it makes sense.

Herodotus also quoted Alexander I saying that he is a Hellene. IX,45. So what's the story?

[Nikolaj]

I see. Those two out of we don't know how many that were tested in that same study, had it, and therefore it applies to thousands. Sure it makes sense.

Herodotus also quoted Alexander I saying that he is a Hellene. IX,45. So what's the story?

Yes, from Alexander I, not from Herodotus himself. These are contradicting views as Herodotus excludes the Macedonians as Greeks in every aspect. This has been analysed before on this forum many times so I am sure you aware of the outcome, including logical and educated analysis of other historians like Eugene Borza so it is either you haven't read them, or playing dumb.

[Constellation]

Herodotus also quoted Alexander I saying that he is a Hellene. IX,45. So what's the story?

What's the story? Good question. Tell me. Is Alexander I accepted as a Hellene because he is Macedonian, or because he "proved" his Argive descent?

What does this say about Macedonia or the Macedonians?

[spitfire]

Yes, from Alexander I, not from Herodotus himself. These are contradicting views as Herodotus excludes the Macedonians as Greeks in every aspect. This has been analysed before on this forum many times so I am sure you aware of the outcome, including logical and educated analysis of other historians like Eugene Borza so it is either you haven't read them, or playing dumb.

I gave you the part where Herodotus quotes this. There are other quotes too.
But I guess Herodotus is not credible now... .

What about the other question? Is it bad to have "slavic" influence?

[Nikolaj]

I gave you the part where Herodotus quotes this. There are other quotes too.
But I guess Herodotus is not credible now... .

What about the other question? Is it bad to have "slavic" influence?

No, you provided a quotation of Alexander I through Herodotus. This isn't Herodotus himself, where does Herodotus himself say the Macedonians are Greeks, that was the question. This is to counteract the evidence of Herodotus not categorising the Macedonians as Greeks.

Then again that quote is a weak argument in the first place, if you know this why I don't understand why you would post it.

Herodotus is very credible, I never said he wasn't. The people he quotes have nothing to do with the credibility of himself.

I don't see how having slavic influence is bad, in fact, I don't know what slavic influence is. What is slavic influence?

[spitfire]

No, you provided a quotation of Alexander I through Herodotus. This isn't Herodotus himself, where does Herodotus himself say the Macedonians are Greeks, that was the question. This is to counteract the evidence of Herodotus not categorising the Macedonians as Greeks.

Then again that quote is a weak argument in the first place, if you know this why I don't understand why you would post it.

Herodotus is very credible, I never said he wasn't. The people he quotes has nothing to do with the credibility of himself.

So the man he quoted, which happened to be a macedonian King, is not credible?
There are other quotes too.

What does this say to you, about self-determination?

[spitfire]

I don't see how having slavic influence is bad, in fact, I don't know what slavic influence is. What is slavic influence?

We might as well ask what is slavic on the whole, since nobody wants to correlate with that.
It somehow does not exist, according to that. It's a ghost.
OK, let's call it something else. The influence of the people speaking slavic in their cultural associations.

[Nikolaj]

So the man he quoted, which happened to be a macedonian King, is not credible?
There are other quotes too.

What does this say to you, about self-determination?

If you are to believe Alexander I the historian over Herodotus, you are better off questioning the validity of everything else he wrote about.

It is easy to identify that Alexander I had an agenda with the Greeks.

What's the story? Good question. Tell me. Is Alexander I accepted as a Hellene because he is Macedonian, or because he "proved" his Argive descent?

What does this say about Macedonia or the Macedonians?

What this tells me about self-determination Spitfire? I think you are to answer this question and you'll get my answer.

We might as well ask what is slavic on the whole, since nobody wants to correlate with that.
It somehow does not exist, according to that. It's a ghost.
OK, let's call it something else. The influence of the people speaking slavic in their cultural associations.

Slavs were a bacteria in the 4th century AD which suddenly became humans a century later through hasty processes of evolution.

Are you able to rewrite your question without the use of the anachronistic term Slavic?

[spitfire]

If you are to believe Alexander I the historian over Herodotus, you are better off questioning the validity of everything else he wrote about.

It is easy to identify that Alexander I had an agenda with the Greeks.



What this tells me about self-determination Spitfire? I think you are to answer this question and you'll get my answer.



Slavs were a bacteria in the 4th century AD which suddenly became humans a century later through hasty processes of evolution.

Are you able to rewrite your question without the use of the anachronistic term Slavic?

I see. Herodotus now doesn't fit the story. Neither does self-determination I guess... .

Slavs were a bacteria? OK, let's call it bacteria. What's wrong with sharing that bacteria then? I take it according to your previous answer, there is nothing wrong with that.

Actually Nikolaj, this approach is a fascist approach. The approach of segregation rather than intergration.
It's no wonder. You are making this very easy. Falling into the trap of antiquity, searching a "purity" that doesn't mean a god damn thing in reality.

Start thinking with a plus, not with a minus.

Here's a good start. I love this song by the way. With greek lyrics, a bosnian setting of music, a gypsy song.

Alkistis Protopsalti ΑΗ ΓΙΩΡΓΗ - ΑΛΚΗΣΤΙΣ Î*ΡΩΤΟΨΑΛΤΗ (EDERLEZI) - YouTube

[Nikolaj]

I see. Herodotus now doesn't fit the story.

I don't quite understand your conclusion.

Neither does self-determination I guess... .

You are openly avoiding Constellations question.

Slavs were a bacteria? OK, let's call it bacteria. What's wrong with sharing that bacteria then? I take it according to your previous answer, there is nothing wrong with that.

No, I was referring to your post:

We might as well ask what is slavic on the whole, since nobody wants to correlate with that.
It somehow does not exist, according to that. It's a ghost.

Actually Nikolaj, this approach is a fascist approach. The approach of segregation rather than intergration.
It's no wonder. You are making this very easy. Falling into the trap of antiquity, searching a "purity" that doesn't mean a god damn thing in reality.

Who the hell is speaking of purity.

You are propelling bullshit by claiming there's nothing wrong with Slavic influence. You do this by posting a Greek song you enjoy which is somewhat influenced by 'Slavic culture'. Your song is of Bosnian influence. By doing this you are openly admitting you have no acknowledgement of the unique cultures within the Balkans. By using the term Slav you are using the framework of the Slavic migration period and have me thinking you are referring to that period of time. Greeks aren’t being labeled as a Slavic people but the Macedonians are, hence why Slavic influence is not insulting to Greeks but insulting to Macedonians.

You are going nowhere with this.

[Constellation]

I see. Herodotus now doesn't fit the story. Neither does self-determination I guess... .

You have a very linear and literal analysis of the text.

Even with we accept that Alexander I was Greek, without challenging the circumstances of that self-determination, and the geopolitical context of Macedonia in his lifetime, it still tells us nothing about who the Macedonians were.

Herodotus's account states Alexander I was accepted as a Hellene because of his Argive ancestry, not because he was Macedonian.

If Macedonians were ethnic Greeks, and Greek speakers, one wonders why their king would have to prove his “Greekness” with Argive ancestry, and not his Macedonian name tag.

So if Alexander I was a Greek, it was because he, and he alone, claimed Argive ancestry.

There are other serious problems with the text, which scholars like Eugene Borza have documented extensively.

[spitfire]

I don't quite understand your conclusion.

That's because you mention Herodotus partially.

You are openly avoiding Constellations question.

No I'm not. I already surpassed it with Herodotus and the point of self -determination.

If you want to claim self-determination then you must accept it for everyone. As pointed by Herodotus. That's called the argument of duh!

No, I was referring to your post:

Yes, and you reffered to the slavs as bacteria, without any problem sharing with them culture.

Who the hell is speaking of purity.

You are propelling bullshit by claiming there's nothing wrong with Slavic influence. You do this by posting a Greek song you enjoy which is somewhat influenced by 'Slavic culture'. Your song is of Bosnian influence. By doing this you are openly admitting you have no acknowledgement of the unique cultures within the Balkans. By using the term Slav you are using the framework of the Slavic migration period and have me thinking you are referring to that period of time. Greeks aren’t being labeled as a Slavic people but the Macedonians are, hence why Slavic influence is not insulting to Greeks but insulting to Macedonians.

You are going nowhere with this.

You are speaking of purity. Denying the influence, making slavs appear like non exsisting.

I also posted a traditional song of Thrace. Bulgarian and Greek all the same, sung equally and inherited by both people.
Is that bacteria?
What about those "unique" cultures in the Balkans? Not very unique perhaps? Ahhh, maybe not that "clean"?

So what else does the term slav mean except bacteria Nikolaj?

[spitfire]

You have a very linear and literal analysis of the text.

Even with we accept that Alexander I was Greek, without challenging the circumstances of that self-determination, and the geopolitical context of Macedonia in his lifetime, it still tells us nothing about who the Macedonians were.

Herodotus's account states Alexander I was accepted as a Hellene because of his Argive ancestry, not because he was Macedonian.

If Macedonians were ethnic Greeks, and Greek speakers, one wonders why their king would have to prove his “Greekness” with Argive ancestry, and not his Macedonian name tag.

So if Alexander I was a Greek, it was because he, and he alone, claimed Argive ancestry.

There are other serious problems with the text, which scholars like Eugene Borza have documented extensively.

Interesting you are mentioning Borza.

Of course Macedonian Kings after Alexander were agents for the spread of the Greek culture and Institutions throuht the Eastern Mediterreanean
E.N.Borza, “On the Shadows of Olympus” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) page 230

And lots more...

http://history-of-macedonia.com/2006/12/31/modern-historians-about-macedonia-eugene-borza/

So from your point of view we must select what Herodotus says because the text is... problematic. But this does not mean that he is not trustworthy! No, wait, he is trustworthy! No, wait again.... he's both!
Clever... .

[Nikolaj]

That's because you mention Herodotus partially.

Are you delusional?

No I'm not. I already surpassed it with Herodotus and the point of self -termination. If you want to claim self-determination then you must accept it for everyone. As pointed by Herodotus. That's called the argument of duh!

I find it funny that you think you have answered the question.

Yes, and you reffered to the slavs as bacteria, without any problem sharing with them culture.

I now see your confusion, I was telling a joke. Did you also miss my sarcasm previously when I called Alexander I a historian?

You are speaking of purity. Denying the influence, making slavs appear like non exsisting.

Have you not read a single page of this thread?

I also posted a traditional song of Thrace. Bulgarian and Greek all the same, sung equally and inherited by both people.
Is that bacteria?
What about those "unique" cultures in the Balkans? Not very unique perhaps? Ahhh, maybe not that "clean"?

You are really, really missing the point.