4 ms·

> The Philistines were likely of Greek origin The headline is chauvinistic. Females and Middle East locals do not seem to count. > The DNA study shows that th

> The Philistines were likely of Greek origin The headline is chauvinistic. Females and Middle East locals do not seem to count. > The DNA study shows that the European DNA of the Philistines disappeared within 200 years, most likely because they intermarried widely, and their genetic signature was diluted within the local population. In other words: The Philistines primarily were of local origin. There were a few people from the Aegean (I shy away from calling them "Greeks" at that early time) that contributed to the gene pool. To use a historical analogy: According to the evidence presented, the Philistines seem to be as much of Greek origin as Southern Italians are of Viking descent. -- Such a characterisation would not be completely wrong, but would neglect everything else, which is much more.

matrix12 4y ago
Read Herodotus. He's very clear about western semitic peoples not marrying greeks for what they eat.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Even the Greek Reporter article says that "the origins of the European genes are inconclusive" (sic): >> While the origins of the European genes are inconclusive, experts have determined that they were most likely from Greece, Crete, Sardinia, or the Iberian peninsula. I'm Greek (though not a reporter) and I have to say that the constant attempt to pin a "Made in Greece" sign on basically every ancient site or people around the Mediterrannean (and much further afield) is extremely frustrating.
Veen 4y ago
Yes, it would probably be better if this linked to the National Geographic article [0] or the original study [1]. The current Greek Reporter link is a rewrite of the NG article. [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-dna-reveal-philistine-origins https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-d... [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0061 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0061
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, we've changed to that from https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/18/philistines-greek/ https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/18/philistines-greek/. Thanks!
AprilArcus 4y ago
This comment is an accurate contextualization of the report within the broader literature. It appears to have been heavily downvoted, which seems to be a matter of patriarchal grievance culture revanchism rather than informed engagement with the material. What a shame.
- Veen 4y ago
  > patriarchal grievance culture revanchism That's a new one for the left-wing academia bingo card.
  - AprilArcus 4y ago
    I'm pleased you enjoyed it. We can bandy words all we like, but it won't change the fact that we descend equally from mothers as well as fathers. By analogy, the fact that Kievan Rus' was founded by Vikings doesn't make the Russian people essentially Norse in some kind of metaphysical sense.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - astrange 4y ago
      Oddly that doesn’t always happen. The pattern of foreign male invaders marrying local women is common, like the Vikings and Normans arriving in the UK, but Scottish people identify as Scottish and not “actually French and Scandinavian”. And even genetics websites arbitrarily decide to cluster them that way. (23AndMe and several other sites give me 100% British despite my YDNA and mtDNA both being ~2% among typical British people.)
  - Archelaos 4y ago
    As the author of the initial comment, I was very surprised to see that it was downvoted. I did not expect that here on HN. See how carefully the original Science article quoted by user Veen avoids cliches of national historiography. Here is their abstract: "The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as 'Philistine' during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called 'Sea Peoples.' Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature." So a "European-related admixture" without a "long-lasting genetic signature" in the original paper becomes "likely of Greek origin" on a Web-site calling itself "Greek Reporter". How could that not be chauvinism? It is using a later national identity and projects it back to a time where it has no real meaning. This was popular 100 years ago for example with the Germans and their Germanic or the French and their Gaul ancestors, neclecting all the other influences. If we are confronted with an admixture, singling out a certain "origin" is pure ideology. This view is so deeply incorporated into todays humanities disciplines (no matter whether a scholar tends more towards the Left or the Right in her or his political views -- a few exception might always be found, though), that I am totally buffled about the downvotes. And I know what I am talking about here, having myself an academic background in the study of European culture and history of ideas. It feels like skipping at least half a century of awarness raising in our disciplines.
dc-programmer 4y ago
I think your sentiment is both right and wrong. There is scientific benefit to tracing the origins because it can help solve mysteries such as identifying which language family their tongue fell under. Also evidence of this type of cultural migration helps explain similarities in the material culture of the Greeks and Philistines. But yes, many countries hype up the historical peoples that lived within their modern-day borders or who spoke a similar language. Now, it definitely seems like countries in the Balkans, Near East, and Caucus region are keen to jump on any genetic or archaeological result that supports their nation building project.
- Archelaos 4y ago
  It was not at all my intention to critizise research about population movements in the past. To the contrary, I find it extreemly fantastic what modern science can find out here. What annoyed me in this particular case was the fact that a particular statement was given a headline that I could not help but call an aberration. It is an example of a not so uncommon narrative in popularized history that is not only naïve, but can become dangerous if it becomes dominant, such as in present-day Russia. Perhaps people may find my complaint about this headline a bit nitpicking. But as a sort of historian by profession, such observations force themselves upon me, and I hope that HN is a place where at least a couple of people feel some affinity with a nerdy scholar.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    I’ll admit I was socially primed to make a lukewarm commit due to the greying of your comment. After reading your response, I fully agree with what you are saying. There was a recent post sharing an article trying to add nuance to popular understandings of the Viking age. The response was pretty negative. It’s sad so many people only see history as a cultural centripetal force to reinforce in-group ties.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

matrix12 4y ago

Read Herodotus. He's very clear about western semitic peoples not marrying greeks for what they eat.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

Even the Greek Reporter article says that "the origins of the European genes are inconclusive" (sic): >> While the origins of the European genes are inconclusive, experts have determined that they were most likely from Greece, Crete, Sardinia, or the Iberian peninsula. I'm Greek (though not a reporter) and I have to say that the constant attempt to pin a "Made in Greece" sign on basically every ancient site or people around the Mediterrannean (and much further afield) is extremely frustrating.

Veen 4y ago

Yes, it would probably be better if this linked to the National Geographic article [0] or the original study [1]. The current Greek Reporter link is a rewrite of the NG article. [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-dna-reveal-philistine-origins https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-d... [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0061 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0061

dang 4y ago
Ok, we've changed to that from https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/18/philistines-greek/ https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/18/philistines-greek/. Thanks!

AprilArcus 4y ago

This comment is an accurate contextualization of the report within the broader literature. It appears to have been heavily downvoted, which seems to be a matter of patriarchal grievance culture revanchism rather than informed engagement with the material. What a shame.

Veen 4y ago
> patriarchal grievance culture revanchism That's a new one for the left-wing academia bingo card.
- AprilArcus 4y ago
  I'm pleased you enjoyed it. We can bandy words all we like, but it won't change the fact that we descend equally from mothers as well as fathers. By analogy, the fact that Kievan Rus' was founded by Vikings doesn't make the Russian people essentially Norse in some kind of metaphysical sense.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - astrange 4y ago
    Oddly that doesn’t always happen. The pattern of foreign male invaders marrying local women is common, like the Vikings and Normans arriving in the UK, but Scottish people identify as Scottish and not “actually French and Scandinavian”. And even genetics websites arbitrarily decide to cluster them that way. (23AndMe and several other sites give me 100% British despite my YDNA and mtDNA both being ~2% among typical British people.)
- Archelaos 4y ago
  As the author of the initial comment, I was very surprised to see that it was downvoted. I did not expect that here on HN. See how carefully the original Science article quoted by user Veen avoids cliches of national historiography. Here is their abstract: "The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as 'Philistine' during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called 'Sea Peoples.' Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature." So a "European-related admixture" without a "long-lasting genetic signature" in the original paper becomes "likely of Greek origin" on a Web-site calling itself "Greek Reporter". How could that not be chauvinism? It is using a later national identity and projects it back to a time where it has no real meaning. This was popular 100 years ago for example with the Germans and their Germanic or the French and their Gaul ancestors, neclecting all the other influences. If we are confronted with an admixture, singling out a certain "origin" is pure ideology. This view is so deeply incorporated into todays humanities disciplines (no matter whether a scholar tends more towards the Left or the Right in her or his political views -- a few exception might always be found, though), that I am totally buffled about the downvotes. And I know what I am talking about here, having myself an academic background in the study of European culture and history of ideas. It feels like skipping at least half a century of awarness raising in our disciplines.

dc-programmer 4y ago

I think your sentiment is both right and wrong. There is scientific benefit to tracing the origins because it can help solve mysteries such as identifying which language family their tongue fell under. Also evidence of this type of cultural migration helps explain similarities in the material culture of the Greeks and Philistines. But yes, many countries hype up the historical peoples that lived within their modern-day borders or who spoke a similar language. Now, it definitely seems like countries in the Balkans, Near East, and Caucus region are keen to jump on any genetic or archaeological result that supports their nation building project.

Archelaos 4y ago
It was not at all my intention to critizise research about population movements in the past. To the contrary, I find it extreemly fantastic what modern science can find out here. What annoyed me in this particular case was the fact that a particular statement was given a headline that I could not help but call an aberration. It is an example of a not so uncommon narrative in popularized history that is not only naïve, but can become dangerous if it becomes dominant, such as in present-day Russia. Perhaps people may find my complaint about this headline a bit nitpicking. But as a sort of historian by profession, such observations force themselves upon me, and I hope that HN is a place where at least a couple of people feel some affinity with a nerdy scholar.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  I’ll admit I was socially primed to make a lukewarm commit due to the greying of your comment. After reading your response, I fully agree with what you are saying. There was a recent post sharing an article trying to add nuance to popular understandings of the Viking age. The response was pretty negative. It’s sad so many people only see history as a cultural centripetal force to reinforce in-group ties.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]