Moots: Ancient Rome Paper

Azzurro said:

LOL, it was found in every single Levantine civilization and Egypt not only Phoenicians. So it can be Phoenician, Jewish, Syrian, Assyrian, Edomite, Egyptian, Amorite, Aramean, etc...

The Scandinivan, the Indian and the Central Asian ones all have an ancestor who belonged to one of those mentioned groups, again this is a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

Click to expand...

Yes, how convenient it is to postulate that it was some Semitic-speaking groups travelling all the way there and settling down instead of taking as the most plausible explanation that it was spread by Iran_N or CHG lineages that are known to have contributed to all groups living in those areas? Again, I have been waiting for some sources, but you just pointed that "the oldest samples that have it are from the Levant, so it must be Levantine", although the fact there is no historical evidence of any possible Egyptian or Levantine sources reaching as far, and that the age of the J2-M205 subclade is compatible with much older movements, https://haplogroup.org/ystory/j-m205/.

We have discussed for some length about this clade, but you have shown to build your "arguments" by wishful thinking, weak evidence and overlooking of contrary evidence, so I do not expect anything different about any eventual discussion about the other clades.

Leopoldo Leone said:

Yes, how convenient it is to postulate that it was some Semitic-speaking groups travelling all the way there and settling down instead of taking as the most plausible explanation that it was spread by Iran_N or CHG lineages that are known to have contributed to all groups living in those areas? Again, I have been waiting for some sources, but you just pointed that "the oldest samples that have it are from the Levant, so it must be Levantine", although the fact there is no historical evidence of any possible Egyptian or Levantine sources reaching as far, and that the age of the J2-M205 subclade is compatible with much older movements, https://haplogroup.org/ystory/j-m205/.

We have discussed for some length about this clade, but you have shown to build your "arguments" by wishful thinking, weak evidence and overlooking of contrary evidence, so I do not expect anything different about any eventual discussion about the other clades.

Click to expand...

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12858-The-History-of-J2

brick said:

I do not think it will be easy to calculate even with the publication of new ancient samples, certainly now it is impossible. Since with the same models using the G25, never forget it is an amateur tool, these components come out even to the Greeks, and the Greeks had an important role in Italy, it is clear that not everything can be attributed to foreign presence during imperial Rome. Moreover, we must consider that the genetics of the Balkans has been greatly altered by the Slavic migrations of the medieval era and that in the past Balkans may have played an important role as a bridge between Italy and the Near East. Finally, the Natufian sample itself is still based on one or two individuals, isn't it? It is highly problematic.





Natufian has likely many problems and is the big question, I agree. With the same model used with Italians and Balkans, many Iberian populations (both Spanish and Portuguese) get out significant percentages of Natufian. Only by putting SSA do these percentages decrease but not disappear. The strange thing is that Natufian comes out to some Iberian samples it comes out, to others it does not. Does it really make sense? This suggests to me that these results cannot be taken too seriously, for a number of reasons already listed, possible sampling error, because of the possible errors in G25, and because of the very nature of these tools, which are tools that calculate only possible estimates that depend on the choices made (models, reference samples) and are not definitive proofs of anything.

Click to expand...

We will be getting more Natufian samples, we'll how much they vary from the few we have now. While I don't fully disagree with you on all points, and think you bring out excellent points, like I said my whole point with this is shut up the everything came in Neolithic or Bronze Age crowd. On the opposite end you see clear Greco-Roman clades who made into the Middle East and North Africa and there is much less of an opposition to it, one of the markers found in one of the Latin Tribes has been found in Algeria and Turkey, or E-V13 that has none trivial frequencies in Middle East, you don't see "E-V13 Neolithic in Fertile Crescent" as a response. Italy and the Balkans were practically the center of the world for 500 years, so its normal you have movements towards there, and the same thing happened the other way. We take for granted how mobile ancient people truly were.

Azzurro said:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12858-The-History-of-J2

Click to expand...

If the oldest R1b sample found had been from western Europe, should we be talking about an European migrations into north America? Maybe in the absence of better explanations, but the spread of J2-M205 with CHG/Iran_N genes makes much more sense, that is to say it is better supported by the available evidence, than a recent spread from Levantines populations reaching as far as India and central asia and north Europe, and the age of the subclade, according to the site I've linked, is compatible with such picture (6000 byp +/- 2700 years).

brick said:

It is enough to add the Neolithic sample Tepecik_Ciftlik_N and both Iran_N and Natufian descend significantly in the Italian samples.

Click to expand...

Don't you just love how he always starts out with Barcin just because it will show more Levant Neo or Natufian in Italians?

Then when he gets caught he'll reluctantly use Tepecek instead. WOW, what happened to all that extra Natufian?

If that isn't the sign of a dishonest, agenda driven analysis, I don't know what is. Sicily is in the 5% range, and Campania and Calabria 3.7%. The rest of the south drops off precipitously.

Is this the big onslaught of Levantine genes we've been hearing about for almost a decade? You'd think they'd be ashamed.

I do believe I said above that if excess Levant appeared in academic studies using more sophisticated tools it would be in the low single digits. Don't they ever get tired of being always wrong?

Leopoldo Leone said:

If the oldest R1b sample found had been from western Europe, should we be talking about an European migrations into north America? Maybe in the absence of better explanations, but the spread of J2-M205 with CHG/Iran_N genes makes much more sense, that is to say it is better supported by the available evidence, than a recent spread from Levantines populations reaching as far as India and central asia and north Europe, and the age of the subclade, according to the site I've linked, is compatible with such picture (6000 byp +/- 2700 years).

Click to expand...

Iron Age and Classical era are recent for you? Bothers you that there is the potential for you having Semitic speaking ancestors

Azzurro said:

Lol I never sent you a picture of myself, I can’t believe you pulled of a lie like this to try and prove i’m sock, its pitiful.

Click to expand...

I never lie; no one has ever been able to prove such a thing after more than ten years here.

You, on the other hand, used a sock on this very site. You posted as Principe and also posted as Azurro, and then went to anthrogenica as Principe Azzurro.

You must have a very short memory.

You've been so wrong so many times. Do the Etruscans ring a bell? Didn't it teach you a little humility?

Well, at least you've finally learned how to spell "Azzurro"; after all the conversations with your Sicilian grandmother and three years of studying Italian, it took all this time.

Your a despicable human being

I sincerely hope your Luni region in Emilia Romagna has nothing to do with Sicily or Basilicata since the Neolithic

Azzurro said:

Your a despicable human being

I sincerely hope your Luni region in Emilia Romagna has nothing to do with Sicily or Basilicata since the Neolithic

Click to expand...

FYI: it is YOU'RE, a contraction of YOU ARE. Your means belonging to you, as in your agenda driven, dishonest analyses.

I see you don't deny that you posted under two separate identities here. Well, of course you can't.

I'm despicable for pointing that out?

What do you call someone who would do that? The word dishonest comes to mind.

Every one who is from Italy shares ancestry. We're all on a cline, so like it or not, we're related on some level. Doesn't mean we all have to like each other. I judge each person as an individual on qualities like honesty, integrity, and compassion.

Angela said:

FYI: it is YOU'RE, a contraction of YOU ARE. Your means belonging to you, as in your agenda driven, dishonest analyses.

I see you don't deny that you posted under two separate identities here. Well, of course you can't.

I'm despicable for pointing that out?

What do you call someone who would do that? The word dishonest comes to mind.

Click to expand...

Principe, Principe Azzurro and Azzurro are variants of the classic Prince Charming reference. I posted under Principe Azzurro because you banned the Azzurro account and did personal attacks and thought I wasn't going to respond, you think I care about your silly rules?

Jovialis on AG posted as Fuorilegge does that make him a sock?

And let me tell you something Angela, unlike you I have many people who personally contact me for information regarding the spread and origins of their Y lines, you bad mouth Anthrogenica, but it is seen as the most pristine anthrofora genetic site, Eupedia forum section is deemed as toxic mostly because of you.

So enjoy posting threads with the same 10-15 people who agree with you and be hostile with anyone who veers away from your line of thinking.

Azzurro said:

Principe, Principe Azzurro and Azzurro are variants of the classic Prince Charming reference. I posted under Principe Azzurro because you banned the Azzurro account and did personal attacks and thought I wasn't going to respond, you think I care about your silly rules?

Jovialis on AG posted as Fuorilegge does that make him a sock?

Are you understanding yourself properly?

Click to expand...

This is the last time I am going to address this. To the best of my recollection you had two separate accounts here; one as Principe and one as Azurro. At anthrogenica you posted as Principe Azzurro.

As for your arguments, such as they are, you have made them; they have been answered. Yours are unconvincing imo and that of most people here.

So, unless you start spamming the same posts over and over again, that would seem to be the end of the matter.

On Anthrogenica anyone who thinks differently from the leading group, who tries to influence and address every discussion, is regularly banned. On Eupedia this does not happen.

binx said:

On Anthrogenica anyone who thinks differently from the leading group, who tries to influence and address every discussion, is regularly banned. On Eupedia this does not happen.

Click to expand...

That’s absolutely not true, its definitely more open. Have you ever posted there?

Angela said:

This is the last time I am going to address this. To the best of my recollection you had two separate accounts here; one as Principe and one as Azurro. At anthrogenica you posted as Principe Azzurro.

As for your arguments, such as they are, you have made them; they have been answered. Yours are unconvincing imo and that of most people here.

So, unless you start spamming the same posts over and over again, that would seem to be the end of the matter.

Click to expand...

Not one convincing counter argument has been made in my opinion, pretty much all the same answers masquerading in different words tbh.

Azzurro said:

Not one convincing counter argument has been made in my opinion, pretty much all the same answers masquerading in different words tbh.

Click to expand...

I've already made my points upthread. Your eurogenes modeling is flawed, there have been many reasons given why, which I have mentioned myself. It is absurd to suggest that south Italians are 20% Levantine, sorry, but to be frank, that's just crazy. If this is the main thing you are arguing, than you should think about this:


You don't find it to be odd that this calculator is producing models that no academic study could support? I know Davidski doesn't like to admit it, in fact he argues that his calculator is better than academic papers! He has told me that himself on AG. That's when I knew that AG is a sort of fan-boy site for eurogenes, people that are delusional enough to think that this calculator is better than academic analysis. It is laughable!


The difference between Eupedia, and AG is that on Eupedia we use these tools, like Dodecad, to best replicate the academic findings to verify accuracy. On AG, you take the results of eurogenes as gospel, despite the fact that is is contrary to academic analysis. Sorry, but dozens of Ivy-League geneticists working on papers using multiple tools for analysis, holds more water than the results of a single tool interpreted by laymen.

@Jovialis,

Its not my main focus, in fact I only become this Levantine in Italians rep when discussing with this crowd. Also I didn’t say it’s definitely 20% range of 5-20%.

By counter arguement why are all genetic companies like Ftdna, MyHeritage, 23&Me and the old Nat Geo calculator give this Middle Eastern?

Your aware that the Ivy League schools are in contact with him? He actually isn’t an amateur regardless of what you think of Davidski.

This is why I dislike autosomal dna, because a lot of it is subjective and bias, i’m an very biased not going to lie about that. When it comes to Uniparental its much more clear cut.

The new paper on the origin and distribution of Ydna J1-M267 provides, I think, more evidence for informed analysis.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41261-Origin-and-diffusion-of-J1-M267?p=621709#post621709

Azzurro said:

@Jovialis,

Its not my main focus, in fact I only become this Levantine in Italians rep when discussing with this crowd. Also I didn’t say it’s definitely 20% range of 5-20%.

By counter arguement why are all genetic companies like Ftdna, MyHeritage, 23&Me and the old Nat Geo calculator give this Middle Eastern?

Your aware that the Ivy League schools are in contact with him? He actually isn’t an amateur regardless of what you think of Davidski.

This is why I dislike autosomal dna, because a lot of it is subjective and bias, i’m an very biased not going to lie about that. When it comes to Uniparental its much more clear cut.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of the "middle eastern" I have seen is usually Iran and Caucasus-related. Thus this is very old (possibly EBA) excess CHG that their modeling adds to their "Italian" components; which is usually about 4 or 5%. We need to connect the dots; Sarno et al. 2021 shows there is very old CHG/IN in southern Italy.


Only a minority of "middle eastern" can usually be broadly associated with the levant region, or within the range of a single percentage point. Which I have speculated could be more attributed to Moorish and Saracen admixture from the Middle Ages. FYI, the levant area is also counted as "North African" in 23andme.


So what if he is in contact with them? His calculator is not giving the accurate modeling, which is not cohesive with what the academics are publishing. I have been in contact with several professionals as well, but that doesn't make me an expert. Like I said, these kinds of calculators are better for broad analysis, not precise analysis, because it clearly doesn't jive well with what the actual experts are saying.

Angela said:

The new paper on the origin and distribution of Ydna J1-M267 provides, I think, more evidence for informed analysis.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/41261-Origin-and-diffusion-of-J1-M267?p=621709#post621709

Click to expand...

It’s not really a direct evidence, I use evidence based on ancient samples and where are clades are currently found today, who brought them. J1 is usually either 6th or 7th and sometimes 8th haplogroup of depending the region or province when looked analytically. I know which J1 branches we see in Italians and across Europe and the Middle East. In the response I gave to Leopoldo, rougly half of the J1 in the Peninsula is of the Classical Middle East variety, the other half is not as clear cut. The most common branch of the other half might be Greek in origin and came in with some J2 in Early Bronze Age, other clades there is clear answer. The 2 best examples are J-FGC8216 and J-L829, where we see young TMRCA’s, we see clear Middle Eastern, Mediterranean Europe and Central and North European branches, so success branches in Roman Empire, and could have been in Italy or Iberian Peninsula very early in Iron Age via Phoenicians and spread with people who were autosomally Italian or Spanish. Then there could have been some who came from a direct ancestor from the Levant. The ultimate source would still be the same, and both aforementioned clades are non trival in distribution. I personally find this exciting that you can see this, and its not only ancient Levantine Y’s I’m interested in, would like to see the spread of Greek paternal lineages, Italic, etc... in the Antonio et al. paper you had several Celts too who settled in Roman Italy, definitely there was some Uniparental leftover as well. We’re getting more papers from ancient Italy, so its going to be exciting.

@Jovialis

Look we see this completely different, if you choose not to see the Levantine its on you, for me its been a fact like the sky is blue since 2016 when I got my first ever results back from Nat Geo.

Maybe the Calcs plus the Uniparental evidence one day will become clear to you as many others see it. There was another poster whom I always argued with over similar discussions, now doesn't deny it anymore.

We'll see what 2021 brings us