The end of mystery??

[scythe]

Do you think that current biotechnology is capable of solving the debate of Macedonians' origin for good?I mean by using the DNA from bones found in some excavated macedonian graves.What kind of impact would cause some early results on your opinion?

[jona]

No. To put it boldly: ethnicity is not something that is biologically given but a social construct. Within a generation, people can change their ethnic affiliation. Genetics have nothing to do with ethnicity.Jona

[f9bob]

"Genetics have nothing to do with ethnicity."
I dont agree,even that you are right in some way.
Genetics have answer for construction of etnicity
today.If we agree that etnicity is constructed from different genes input than what is the rule what is driving creation of etnicity if it is not compatible gene simbiosis for sucesfull survival of humans.Genetics can trace today these line of creation and can help in solving the problem of this conflict.

[ancientlibrary]

This is one of those fashionable academic lines
that just boggles me. It stems from the
observation that ethnicity is always partly and
often highly constructed. It corrects a widely
believed and highly pernicious myth--that
ethnicities are fully discrete and empirically
based. Fine and good! But when expressed as
a blanket statementGÇöethnicity has nothing to do
with geneticsGÇöit can only draw a smile. .NOTHING to do at all? Granted that people and
nations re-jigger their ethnic identifications all
the time, is it true that each generation and
invididual rethinks them ab novo, with no regard
for plausibility or others' opinion? Will my child
decide he's Chinese? If he does, will anyone
believe him? Of course not! If he did, he would
be disbelieved and mocked. Can I say therefore
that--at least as far as jumping from
Norman-English white people to
Chinese--ethnicity has *something* to do with
genetics?.I'm with you on the larger issue. I doubt
Macedonian bones would prove much. The
distance is too great, the populations too
similar. That in any case, is what I suspect a
geneticist would say. But let's not overstate
things. I think we can have some confidence
that DNA from ancient Macedonian bones would
be statistically closer to DNA from Balkan
Europeans than from the indigenous residents
of Tasmania. Fair enough?

[scythe]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.A comparison with today's ihabitants of Macedonia(north Greece,FYROM&Bulgaria)would propably cause a real headache and I agree that it's difficult to have an answer after 2500 years.But what about comparing it with a sample of its time?From ancient Sparta for example.Moreover,I read in an article recently that biogenetics prooved Jews with names like Cohen,Cohn,Kahn etc. have a common ancestor that probably lived 3500 years ago and could be legendary Aaron(brother of Moses according to the bible)!

[yiannis]

I absolutelly hate the idea that one person's ethnicity can be decided based on genetics. That was Adolf's idea and we all know where it has led the world!Ethnicity is a cultural aspect. See for example modern day Turks. They have nothing in common genetically with the Hunnish tribe that started off in Central Asia. They have assimilated Greeks, Slavs and many more of the populations that were living in Asia Minor. Can one say that today this person is e.g. a Greek and not Turk? I don't think so even if ha doesn't have mongoloid features! (just an example)...In any case there's a project going on extracting genetic material from Mycanean and Macedonian tombs (from the tooth IIRC). I don't know the results yet or at what stage it is now. I was reading about it on BBC a few months back.

[jona]

Fair enough! I did indeed overstate my case.Jona

[me]

I think the problem is where ethnicity is used as a way of discriminating against people - like a lot of science, it isn't the research, but what use the research is put to that is the problem. Also, facts used in isolation can be very misleading or dangerous. I think it is fascinating. There was some stuff done on tribes in Britain - I would love to know which tribe I most resemble - Celts, Norse, Anglo-Saxons... It doesn't tell everything about someone - but it shows a huge distrust for humanity to not do this sort of research just because of rascist spectres.Social constructionism and the blank slate idea are now being balanced out by a lot of genetic research now, and long overdue..Linda

[xxx]

That would depend on the answer the person doing the studying wanted it to be. In my experience scientists and scholars rarely use empirical evidence to come to conclusions that are different from what they started with. Take for instance the facial reconstruction of the inhabitant in Tomb II in Vergina. You can't do a facial reconstruction correctly if you already know what you want the person to look like. Too many variables.The more important answer to the question is what did the Macedonians think they were, not what we think they were, or what the Ancient Athenians thought they were etc. There's ample evidence to come to a strong conclusion, but apparently there's too many trees in the forest for most to see it clearly. They couldn't have cared less about their DNA and neither should we.

[smittysmitty]

'The more important answer to the question is what did the Macedonians think they were'If this statement refers to the Macedonian monarchy, I'd say fair comment, on the information at hand! That it relates to the Makedones in general- can't see that at all, if anything what little information is at hand suggests anything but. 'There's ample evidence to come to a strong conclusion'What would that be? - that relates to the Makedones i.e. or are we assuming ATGs press relates to all Makedones?your views are appreciated
cheers!

[me]

I disagree - facial reconstruction is not pure science and can't be compared to genetics. It isn't research - it is using what is available in a "best guess" way. It can eliminate some things - but not confirm everything. It is also an art. Scientists often start off with a theory - and find that they don't get what they are looking for, or find something different. Such disrespect - what is your experience of scientists that you can be so dismissive..?

And please - can we not always defer on every issue to what the Macedonians would have wanted or thought. It is relevant when looking at their view of themselves, of course. Whether working out ethnic origin is of any use is a different thing - but to dismiss it as unimportant is very arrogant - you might not be interested, but others obviously are..

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,A good point, rather lost between the massed battle lines, I felt.Whatever the Macedonian monarchy felt, it in no way reflects what the peasantry felt about their 'ethnicity', 'nationality', or whatever you want to call it. From what Herodotus and others said about the monarchy and its origins, it seems to me that the two stata of society might have had *very* different ideas about what the Macedonians were.It occurred to me that the situation might not have been too dissimilar to that in England after the Norman Conquest. It took nearly a hundred years before any of the aristocracy started to think of themselves as 'English', and even then it was only those who no longer had any lands elsewhere - and it wasn't until after 1204, when King John lost Normandy, that any real concept of being English was taken up by the aristocracy as a whole. *And* the first king who spoke English as a first language (or joint first language) wasn't until nearly 500 years after the Conquest.While all this was going on, the peasantry regarded them as aliens and conquerors for a long time, most definitely *not* English. I wonder how long it took the Upper Macedonians to accept the Lowland Macedonians as being the same 'people' ...All the bestMarcus