Search results

It didn't "confirm" what we "already knew", unless by "we" you mean mattoids from anthrogenica and other delusional individuals. I have grown accustomed to cr*p being published but I shan't pretend it is good scholarship. If you think that I am too harsh go take a look at their qpAdm models...

I think that papers like this shows the problem with reading literally qpAdm admixtures without checking the results against other tests: the results exposed in table 8 in the supplementaries are inconsistent with the Balkans being a cline, since it is rather discrete with some populations...

Found this tweet, there's a PCA but it's blurry.

I am getting tired of the obsession, which verges on the mental illness, that many hobbyists have about making southern Italians as middle easterners as possible: if the resolution is too low, the PCA can be found on page 65 of the supplementary data of the paper from which the sample under...

It is such a glaring mistake to speak of a "Levantine" admixture, because as far as the evidence goes there is positive evidence of little to none Levantine admixture, since all the "near easterners" samples minus one in the Balkans were Anatolians (actually the samples rejected any direct...

It is ideological thrash, I have no other words to describe such "brilliant" paper's thesis (which isn't based on empirical data but on the a priori hypothesis about Italy becoming mixed during the empire and then late antiquity with northern Europeans and middle easterners). It makes no sense...

Indeed no one in his right mind speaks of drastical population changes, because any one who has a sound historical understanding grasps the difference between a scenario in which upper middle class foreigners moved into urban centers and a scenario in which somehow an entire region got...

I haven't read a single valid line of defense from your part, I'll compare your procedures to what archaeogenetists do: they use MANY various methods in order to test, as far as possible, a hypothesis BASED on an overall historical reconstruction (narration + explanation) grounded on the...

You have no idea how admixture models are to be interpreted, since they just show how a population can be modelled, it does not literally show what the actual ancestral genetic make-up of a people is- it shows "a possibility", as far as the samples and the algorithm used go, a possibility that...

I get the impression that such programs work like google browser, that is they give as an output what they most often encounter about a topic in the web, thus, given that we already know the fetishist obsession about southern Italians, papers that are NOT about southern Italy and southern...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTqGXZksFZw&t=2065s Extremely interesting. The part about the genetic shift in Crete starts at around 33 minute mark

Could you try Cetina to see how the model behaves?

As far as the evidence goes the neolithic substratum in south Italy wasn't Minoan-like (though in central Italy it was already Peloponnesian_N-like), but some minoan-like input arrived during the middle bronze age (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.supplementary-material in...

I believe that "Oscans" and "Lucanians", at least at the beginning, were genetically similar to Latins, but they were the latest arrivals in southern Italy, since before them Greeks invaded the lands occupied by whom they called "Ausones", and they might have made up the bulk of the population...

@Er Monnezza 1) The link I posted unambiguously stated that "the medieval Roman dialect belonged to the southern family of Italian dialects", you say that "it has very southern features, but I think it is a stretch to ascribe it directly to the southern group": it is again the old problem of...

@Er Monnezza 1) the wikipedia page (which just reports what is said in the sources linked) says clearly that the language spoken around Rome belonged to the southern group, hence it was NOT part of the central group, and indeed was "much" closer to Neapolitan than to dialects of the central...

1)Do you even read what I post? The dialect/language spoken in Rome during the (at least early) middle ages was part of the Neapolitan branch, unless you know more than Italian scholars on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_dialect#History , read the sources linked by the way). 2)Also...

1) The bulk of Medieval Romans cluster with deep southern Italians, where you can see the tight clustering, and also a considerable amount of "outliers", so to speak, (though I interpret this as a snapshot of the process that created modern Romans as a mixing of a previous south Italian-like...

(it didn't allow me to post the image in the previous post)

What makes you say confidently that "that signal is there and remains in our genetics"? As far as I see, there is no such signal; this new methodology detects Levant_N ancestry across all Europe since the BA, and both you and I get the impression it might inflate it, and personally the evidence...