Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archetype0ne
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archetype0ne
We still lack data from inner Balkans by the way. So, i guess we should wait for more samples to build this whole mosaique.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
You mean modern population or ancient ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
I thought that was due to lack of ancient samples from these countries.
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Just wait till the Albanian samples are published, then watch some mental gymnastics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
I thought after this paper there would be no mental gymnastics, yet torzio proves me wrong.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Lack of proof is being taken by Torzio as proof to the contrary. Total misinterpretation of the facts at hand.
Maximum i can guess Albanian hinterland samples are slightly more related to Greeks and Thracians while the Dalmatian ones more to Italians, but overall all of the aforementioned populations on autosomal were related prior to Slavic migrations anyway and probably the hypothetically Anatolian input during Byzantine times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archetype0ne
From my eyes it seems that those samples are intermediate between Bronze Age Sicilians and and Tuscans. They are fairly heterogenous. Some are really close to central Italians therefore way closer to Apulians than the Bronze Age Sicilians are. We also need samples from Messapians. The south ones.
I can't wait to see those samples in amateur calculators, this academic PCA sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
they are the same people in origin
https://i.postimg.cc/bJwzJYN7/SE-italy.png
all scholars, Italians and others state they arrived from the North-Adriatic balkan coast .
a summary
-Daunians moved from Liburnia and hinterland between 1100-1000 BC to Italy.
-The Daunians only traded with Liburnia until circa 450BC ...............trade in pottery, silica, arms and other goods
-There was no Greek influence as per what the paper states as well as other papers.
-in 440BC they began making their owns pots to trade to Epirus, Greek states and Italians.
-In 250BC , they where absorbed into Roman society and from then began to disappear.
When the 36 samples from Nadin-gradine in Croatia are fully analyzed then it will further state they are from the northern balkans
Liburnian samples so far
https://i.postimg.cc/85PTqXDn/liburnain-samples.png
A paper for Jovailis
https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstr...isotope....pdf
Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis
in Italy and Croatia: Bronze Age Food Practices
Across the Adriatic
Yes but one sample was essentially Mycenean-like. And overall the samples are heterogenous, for such a small area. We need southern samples too.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio
Well, I'm glad we've gotten down to the core of the issue. Claiming that Albanians are descendants of Ottomans is t-rolling behavior, as I pointed out more than once. In fact, if my memory serves I had running disputes with Serbians, I think it was, and pointed out, again more than once, that the Albanians had been in the Balkans far longer than any Slavs, who were late comers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archetype0ne
However, disagreeing with Albanians on certain topics, or finding that the Greek members, when there are any, have some valid points, is not t-rolling Albanians. Certain Italians and Italian Americans started their own site in response to t-rolling behavior. I never joined or read it beyond a few initial visits, because first, they did more than their own fair share of t-rolling, and secondly, they refused to accept certain facts which the genetics made clear.
I've never done either. I try to be as objective as is humanly possible. If I agree with certain things Greek members have said (by no means all), then it is because I believe the science is on their side on certain matters; it has absolutely nothing to do with any bias for them as a group or against Albanians, although to be completely honest, given how Albanian members have spoken to and about me, both here and even worse, in PMs, it required an effort of will to refuse to let that affect my decisions.
When someone disagrees with the "Albanian" point of view, it isn't necessarily out of any animus, or t-rolling. It can be an honest expression of how someone interprets the data, and even more so, at least in my case, a belief that the data is "not" in, and that people are just speculating to an incredible degree. Now, sometimes, when you speculate, you turn out to be right, sometimes you don't. It doesn't really change the fact that you didn't have enough evidence when you came to your conclusion.
As to the constant song about how much MENA there is in Southern Italians, the discussions are so a-scientific as to be laughable in most cases. Using that outmoded terminology for the sake of the argument, I couldn't give a rat's you know what if it were 90% of the genetic material. People persist in thinking that their own prejudices, biases, call them what you will, are universal. They're not. Believe me, both my husband, who is actually Southern Italian, and I, who married him, would be a lot more concerned if his ancestry consisted of large percentages of other ethnicities, and I mean European ones. My problem with the people on sites like anthrogenica is that they're ignorant as well as biased. Just look at what they promoted for YEARS about the Etruscans. You think I would have cared personally if it turned out that they came to Italy from Anatolia in the first millennium B.C.? If you do you haven't read many of my posts and you don't know me. The fact was that the archaeology and the history and what little ancient dna we had (mtDna) was all against that conclusion. So, who was wrong and who was right? Anyone remember the prediction that the Mycenaeans were going to be blonde haired, blue eyed virtual identical copies of Corded Ware? How about all that "modeling" showing those huge percentages of steppe all over northern India? Did any of all that incredibly bad analysis, and the examples are too numerous to mention, teach certain people some humility? No, it absolutely didn't.
In fact, my track record all round is infinitely better than that of the members on that site and than the likes of someone like Eurogenes. That's because I don't let ascertainment bias influence me, and instead read everything available and then judge as best and as objectively as possible where the answer might lie. If I don't have enough data, I say so. I spent my entire professional life dealing with issues that way, and I wasn't going to change that when the topic was population genetics.
Fair reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
I spend probably 1/10th of the time on Anthro, mostly just reading rather than first hand involvement. And so far it looks like a chill place. In fact can't recall his name, one member I have heard mentioned here, as a t-roll, who was saying Etruscan Anatolian, S Italians MENA etc, I am sure you know who I am talking about, he was brought up a couple of times in discussions in Eupedia as a t-roll. He is banned. In fact am not even sure why they banned him, one moment he was popular in the forum, next day I see that he is banned.
Don't really care to continue this conversation since I think we reached a decent conclusion. And your reply was more than fair.
But as usual I can't help myself, writing comments people most likely won't care to read. But I think you would agree, that its entirely subjective. You think S-Italians and Imperial Romans being majorly MENA ancestry is not the case based on evidence; well as you said, some members might have different interpretation of the data, just like some Greek posters interpret the Albanian statistics as they please. But see, when it comes to Italians that would not stand here, in Eupedia, as IMO it should not. On the other hand, when the data is like the case of L283, very much in ones face, and as irrefutable as the field of historical genetics gets, its somehow okay for certain members to say L283 colonized North Albania after the Albanian-Ottoman war. Like saying C6 like people colonized Italy after the Napoleonic wars. But you do not see it that way. And I guess that is exactly why these matters are subjective. Despite objective evidence supporting my view, that some thread I have reported <countless times> will be like the Albanians - Berbers threads from 2010, 10 years from now.
I know I am biased in this. And as far as I know, everyone is biased one way or the other, the burden of free will. And there is a fine line when it comes to free speech. But when it comes to science, the line is clear as it gets. Some statements are either true or false (unless you want to get into paradoxes). And factually false statements are judged on ad hoc bases here, depending on whom they affect.
Again, this is off topic, but until I or someone makes another Albanian thread, guess I have to vent here.
https://i.postimg.cc/nhXsnDPg/isotop...ry-croatia.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by torzio
Chances are you will get similar results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johane Derite
Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
Can you guys create a thread for E-V13 in it's own. Some posts are fine in this thread but this is a bit too much.
https://i.ibb.co/BZ2FZs8/20210803-152533.png
I edited this by phone, since my laptop isn't working. I think this is how native Apulians plot, so they are nearly as close as Myceneans to Apulians, but in a western direction. I hope we will see those sample in calculators soon.
Apulians are the ones in brown triangles.
Sorry, again I don't agree and I think you are misrepresenting my opinions, perhaps because you haven't read enough of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archetype0ne
Of course some of the Imperial Romans have a lot of more "recent" Near Eastern ancestry, i.e. more recent than the Neolithic or Copper Age, say. That's why there's that "tail" to the east discussed in Antonio et al and which one can see in the PCA of the subject paper. My point was and is that we have no idea how many of those people were long time residents who stayed in Italy and contributed to the gene pool and how many were transients. It's like some archaeologist of the future thinking that everyone buried in Manhattan was a local.
What is also clear is that as Rome ceased to be the hub of the Roman Empire that tail disappeared. The reason seems pretty clear; people from the Near East no longer had reason to come to Rome as it was becoming a backwater. Furthermore, it is clear that after the Fall of the Empire, the cities collapsed, and with them might have disappeared a lot of the descendants of "Imperial" Romans, to be replaced by the people of the countryside. Did some of that ancestry remain, more in the South than in the North? Yes, of course it did. And who cares, other than racists??? That somehow northerners from Italy or foreigners from the north of Europe went south in sufficient numbers to "pull" them further north again is belied by the history, of which many posters are completely ignorant, as I pointed out above.
We also don't yet have enough data to determine when the increase in more recent ancestry from the Near East came to Southern Italy and even Northern Italy, and whether it was via Greeks, or directly from the Near East, or both, and if both, in what percentages. If you really want to know how I or other members of this forum interpret the data, or take a let's wait and see approach toward certain issues, you really should read the Antonio et al thread carefully so that you don't misrepresent people's opinions. I also suggest that you read Razib Khan's piece on unsupervised learning titled "They came...". I think it's now free.
As for anthrogenica being a "chill" place, no site can be "chill" which bans people for having opinions contrary to those of the powers that be at that site, as happened to Jovialis. I have NEVER, EVER, banned someone for disagreeing with me. People get banned for insulting other members or moderators, for posting hate speech, for links to racist sites etc. but that's it. If you think otherwise, again, you're very misinformed.
Now, if people want to discuss E-V13 in the Balkans, start a thread on it and stop de-railing this one. Other members are tired of threads being taken over by discussions of tangential issues. For Balkan conflicts, a thread was specifically created for it; take those arguments there.
I'm looking forward to the samples too, to see how they project in Dodecad K12b and Globe 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by ihype02
This is very disrespectful because i have already for that specificity created another thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...IA-Balkan-caseQuote:
Originally Posted by Angela
But that sneaky fox has already reported and complained to the moderators it looks. And very likely intentionally even though i created a thread intending to link all archeological papers.
OMG, no wonder these threads deteriorate; you people are WAY too quick to take offense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
I don't know what you're talking about, first of all; I didn't know you started a new thread. Second of all, no one complained about anything, and third of all, that sounds like a provocative title, and that won't fly hre. If you want to talk about E-V13 in the Balkans, great, but there will be no provocation and t-rolling here. A thread about E-V13 in the Balkans should be so labeled.
So, I'll go take a look and see what you're doing. If you're t-rolling the thread will be deleted.
For the future, if someone is, you believe, t-rolling you, report it. I don't read every thread, and especially lately, I'm here very seldom.
It's not provocative, but neither is it a thread on E-V13 in the Balkans, and the title says nothing about E-V13 even if I had seen it, so you're wrong on all counts, as well as rude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela
If you want the thread to be about E-V13 in the Balkans then title it that way so that people understand what will be covered, and they will be able to find it via the search engine in the future.
There is no mention of Dalmatians or Dalmatae in the bronze-age....but the lands where noted as Liburnian
Zadar (Iader), Nin ( Aenona), Podgrađe near Benkovac ( Asseria), Ivoševci (Burnum), and other sites, arein southern Liburnia.
Material evidence can trace the Illyrians in modern-day Dalmatia back to as early as the
Copper-Age46. The same evidence has shown that Liburnian culture has most likely been around
since the late Bronze-Age. It is said that Liburnia’s borders reached all the way up to the Istrian
peninsula and as far down as the island of Corfu (which they lost in the eighth century B.C.E.
when the Corinthians colonized the island for their own) when they were at their peak.47They
controlled much of the Adriatic islands but as for the mainland they mainly had consistent
control over the coastline and the county that is today known as Zadar, but known to the
Liburnians as Iader or Jadera
Pliny said that Liburnia ended where Dalmatia began and that it contained
Tragurium [modern-day Trogir], a place well-known for its marble, and also the
colony of Salona, which was 112 miles from Iadera [modern-day Zadar], and that
Iadera was 160 miles from Pola.
Salona is modern Solin
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Solin,+Croatia/@43.2318709,16.1921688,7.17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x13355ede2424e549:0x400ad50862bd1 70!8m2!3d43.5422549!4d16.4919632
My conclusion, it that at the time of the Daunian landings in Italy, the Daunian originate from modern Croatia under certain Liburnian tribes of which the proto-Dalmatae could have been one presenting themselves for the first time in 600BC ............400 years after Daunian settlement in Foggia area Italy ..............
............Proto-Dalmatae = Liburnians
Are there any samples from Laterza culture, the Neolithic culture of Puglia? I think it is important to know, if we want to make inferences about the area. I think just looking at a culture, which the paper says was resistant to outside contact, and then comparing them to central Italian people of a later time, is not a fair way to determine the genetic history of the area. After all, the Iagyians had only migrated to the area in the first millennium BC. I don't think all of the people that used to live there just disappeared!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laterza_culture
Puglia in the Bronze Age:
Quote:
Coppa Nevigata is an archaeological site in the province of Foggia, southern Italy, southwest of Manfredonia, on the Apulian coast of the Gargano peninsula.
The earliest human presence on the site, which was situated on the edge of a coastal lagoon, with easy access to the sea and numerous natural resources, dates back to the Neolithic, between the 7th and 5th millennia BC. At a later date, a settlement of the final Neolithic period continued into the Bronze Age; occupation at the site is attested for the Protoapennine, Apennine, and Subapennine phases of the Italian Bronze Age.
During the Bronze Age, a significant settlement arose that had contacts with the civilizations of the Aegean; these contacts are most visible during the Subapennine phase, when fragments of Mycenaean ceramics are found at the site. From the beginning of the Protoapennine phase, there is evidence for the extraction of purple dye from murex shells and for pressing of olives to extract olive oil. The purple dye production, starting around 1800 BC, is the earliest yet attested in Italy. This dye production increased through the 14th century BC, but sharply dropped off by the 12th century in the Subapennine phase. Some areas near the fortifications and on the shore of the lagoon were dedicated both to the processing and storage of cereals and to the extraction of purple dye; these activities were later moved within the settlement. The site was defended by dry stone fortification walls.
The site is currently under periodic excavation by a team from Sapienza University of Rome, under the direction of Alberto Cazzella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppa_Nevigata
I think we really need to also see samples from the Messapii
I wonder if the so-called "foreign" father of ORD001, was a Messapian, and took a Daunian wife, ORD009.Quote:
The origin of the Messapii is debated. The most credited theory is that they came from Illyria as one of the Illyrian tribes who settled in Apulia and that they emerged as a sub-tribe distinct from the rest of the Iapyges. It seems that the Iapyges spread northwards from the Salento.[8][9]
The pre-Italic settlement of Gnatia was founded in the fifteenth century BC during the Bronze Age. It was captured and settled by the Iapyges, as they occupied large tracts of territory in Apulia. The Messapii developed a distinct identity from the Iapyges. Rudiae was first settled from the late ninth or early eighth centuries BC. In the late sixth century BC, it developed into a much more important settlement. It flourished under the Messapii, but after their defeat by Rome it dwindled and became a small village. The nearby Lupiae (Lecce) flourished at its expense. The Messapi did not have a centralised form of government. Their towns were independent city-states. They had trade relationships with the Greek cities of Magna Graecia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapians
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovialis
Are you saying the messapics where already in Italy and where original italic people and the Daunians and other came over from the sea and all three united into one unit ?
No, perhaps they were Balkanites that mixed with a pre-Italic people, and spread north out of Salento. The excerpt said they captured a pre-Italic town that was founded in the Bronze age.Quote:
Originally Posted by torzio