Has genetics replaced traditional sources of history?
Has anyone else noticed how many of the historical subjects are now based primarily on genetics? I mean, before genetics was easy for any donkey to use (vahaduo), written books, reports, testimonies, language, etc were our best source.
it seems that these things are losing ground to the autosomal material, PCAS; SNP bla bla.
Look, I'm not anti-genetics, it helped us a lot to study the past, but I think that disregarding other sources is arrogant. I think I understand a people who complain about “haploautists"
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Genetics and biology are falsifiable and extremely good tools to see the past,though still should not replace these other sources that you talked.
Genetics continues to prove modern historians are wrong whilst vindicating ancient historians
No they do not. That’s your Headcanon. Cholchians and Egyptians are completely unrelated, sucks for Herodotus.
Colchians being related to the Egyptians = debunked
Etruscans coming from Anatolia in the Late bronze age = debunked
Phoenicians coming from the Persian gulf = debunked
So no, Herodotus got proven wrong and the majority of modern archaeologists right
exactly.
Or "Romans came from Troy"
This is extremely my point, my dear.
let's be honest, a kind of "prejudice" was created (in the literal sense of the word, not the progressive one) about the old material... it is almost disregarded at the level of mythology, /your/ was much better for debating, remember how it was fun in 2012?
OP is a dumb gay.
>Has genetics replaced traditional sources of history?
This literally did not happen, but it should. Genetics is in agreement with mainstream history and it's conclusively BTFO afrocentrists and eurocentrists who are proven to have no history and were wewuzzing all along.
>disregarding other sources is arrogant
This did not happen. Please read a book at some time in your life OP.
>history
Archeology. History is fine as it's based primarily on written sources.
and they still use genetics to disregard ancient historical sources.
see the crazy guy above....
and archeology and history, although they may have their clear differences, are not extremely separable
No; how could it? It's usefull but it tells you nothing about the material culture of a people
OP is probably a 40 year old boomer.
Does it hurt you to know that those ancient sources about how people B were related to people A are wrong? or how the descriptions are most of the time wrong? Or the Scythians being extremely red and blond and the Celts having a high concentration of light hair?
or even the Indo-European disposition which was mainly based on language and archeology, which proved that the IE in southern Europe did not replace anything.
OP, the world has changed and deal with it.
You lost, my old OP
b-but he wuz k-k-kangz n shieet!
>Or the Scythians being extremely red
and who said they weren't? go read a book buddy.
which book?
sources of men who never set foot on the "Scythians"? sources that a man who went there and told other people until the information "reached" the specific Greek who wrote the report? my friend's friend told me. this is the level of ancient sources, they are not first-hand accounts.
I prefer genetics, and just to make you cry, see how rubbish your reports are;
Coper
Basically the ancient Romans and Greeks (non-white) thought the occasional presence of light hair among the Scythians, who were otherwise dark haired, was unique enough to write about. Some morons read about it and decided the Scythians were all blonde until DNA revealed only a small minority had light hair colors.
Yes.
my problem with old sources and how people interpret this garbage is exactly that.
see the case of the "red-haired Dacians", as it was a rare characteristic in the Greeks, and they wanted to report a differentiation between them, they simply took rare characteristics and applied them as if they were the average of the Dacians, the same with the "dark-haired" Egyptians ", they weren't saying that they were black, just that they were dark by Greek standards.
and red hair being rare among the Greeks, a Dacian minority with such features would be enough to "prove how red they were". This makes me sleepy!
>Has genetics replaced traditional sources of history?
No. It is nothing more than a useful tool at times, it's hardly a replacement and never will be
No.
Until a while ago, it was accepted that the Scythians had a considerable predominance of red hair, due to several sources, as OP boomer said, but genetics proved that this is wrong, and it is not just an isolated case LOL.
Strict archeology may still remain "irrefutable", but genetics can still clarify things better.
the tarim mummies were thought to be Indo-European, but were in fact ANE, the Scythian skeletons and other Scythian materials in the Far East were taken as proof of the Scythian presence in the region, but genetics proved that they were just hapas, etc.
for citing a few small examples.
>but genetics proved that they were just hapas, etc.
I think this is why OP is complaining. This is a bad way to view things because it makes you absolutely inflexible and enslaves you to genetic clusters.
You literally say
>Skeletons buried in the Scythian style
>Artifacts recognizeably scythian
>Art scythian in character
>DNA test results come in showing they mixed with the locals (as happened basically everywhere)
And then conclude:
>They're just hapas even though that is debated.
Anyway, democratizing history was a mistake.
Just so you guys know, he is talking about Kossina. it's part of a twitter culture war thing.
>I think that's why O is complaining. This is a bad way of looking at things because it makes you absolutely inflexible and enslaves you to genetic groupings.
You literally say
What did you really mean by that? my examples are how old sources are unreliable LOL. at least and general level.