Search results

What are you referring to with "completely new group of DNA"? Is there a paper that shows that a region in Italy, Vagnari, was all Greek adn "east med" (by this I understand near east, from the Levant to Anatolia)?

I agree that "continuity" is a subjective label and it is just the interpretation of the authors that decides when there is continuity or not (except in clear cut cases), but that bit is very misleading because it states that it is just the three samples located at the bottom and only of those...

I wrote "it came from Iran" not that the spead of semitic tongues is strongly linked with J1 haplo, which is likely, but as you've written it seems likelier that who brought J1 into the Levant and Arabia adopted a previous language.

The suggestion that Semitic languages came with J from Iran is as moronic as the suggestion that Albanians and the Albanian language come from north africa because of haplo E. They got the linguistic bit utterly wrong, an example of what happens when one tries to link genetics too much with...

Both in this paper's PCA and the one from the Antonio et al paper ancient Romans, though cluster closest to north Italians, are west of them (also R437 is a bit west of modern central/south Italians), in a very similar way to how ancient Daunians are to modern day central south Italians; also...

A caucasus shift would be still a rightward shift to an extent, and though an Anatolian_IA-like gene flow could work well for central and south Italians (at least judging visually by the PCA: I know it is a very, VERY rough way but admixture models of Italians with Anatolia_IA do not work badly...

I knew that the awkwardness of talking about "east shift" when one refers to an upward translation in a PCA because the samples the shifted ones are pulled towards are geographically from east Europe would confuse some that would start talking of this "east shift" as the signal of a Near Eastern...

It can be a possibility but I do not like ad hoc postulates and as for now we're still in the dark as to what caused the "east shift" (what I've called "AEE shift" to indicate the upwards translation in the PCA), and untill nothing better comes I think the better representative for local...

Since I've already read some astoundingly dumb comments from the usual sites about the paper, especially that "it confirms that Italy was Italic-like before Greek settlers almost completely replaced the locals in south Italy" (since they either wilfully or by sheer negligence forget to tell...

I have read it yesterday and waited for a few comments before chipping in, here what my thoughts are: First I feel two caveats are important to make: I've noticed a bit of terminological embarassment because "west" or "east" can be ambigous here, so I add that: 1) As for the PCA, if we place...

I am not an expert but I'll give my two cents: if the "standard model" is correct, before the crown eurasian(henceforth "CrE") there was a split between the former and BE, and before that between BE and ANA, so depending to whether BE was closer to ANA or CrE the affinities of BE for CrE or BE...

It seems that modern Italians get great matches for almost 2,000 old people that lived in Italy, be it that they get more "latin-like" ancestry or "Greek-like" ancestry. Now I wonder whether Italy was at some stage more Latin-like and became stepmeal more Greek-like thanks to the incorporation...

My two cents: it just mirrors the result of the Moots paper, but it just adds that it wasn't just Latium but the same pattern was observed at least in Etruria and at least some regions of south Italy (we don't know yet if they mean all south Italy or just the regions under Etruscan control)...

I have checked the FST of the study, and they are beyond nonsense: Sicilian-south Italian: 0.016 (!) Sicilian-Saudi: 0.0012 Sicilian-north Italian: 0.002 Greek-Iranian: 0.006 Greek-Ashkenazi jew: 0.006 Greek-Jordanian: 0.006 Greek-Irish: 0.006 (!) Sicilian-Jordanian: 0.004 Sicilian-Lebanese...

I had remained outside because in my eyes it is just useless bickering if one doesn't state exactly what one is claiming, and I had the impression that the discussion was around empty referential terms, but this comment here makes one claim clear enough: since Anatolian_N originated in the near...

You are forgetting the hundreds, if not thousand years that separate the coming of IE speakers with the birth of the Greeks and other ancient European peoples: at least if we take the case of Spain as paradigmatic, it is true that north European-like folks invaded and provoked a large genetic...

I think we can say "some of which cluster with Cypriots" if and only if some do after the paper has been published. For now they are just a rumours for a guy who hasn't shown himself to be trustworthy.

The linguistic explanation is plausible, but I mean "where have you read it? Is there a source?". I ask because it is the first time I hear it. I know that Memnon swang between being represented as a black man (straight bantu, "lips and all") and as a caucasoid, because he was associated with...

That is interesting: how do you know this?

Actually it is the first time I reply in this thread, and because I had the impression that there is some mistaken, vague idea about southern Europeans' ***mentation from the part of a user from Germany, which is comprehensible because I've noticed online that the "seasonability" of our skin...