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.
Many people are quite attached to their cliches of nationalist historiography. In fact, they find it quite annoying when they are called chauvinists for believing them.
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.