Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's stuff like this that makes me ignore autosomal interpretations. Everything is simplified to an extend that it sounds stupid. Everything North-Eastern is Slavic and everything North-Western is Celtic.My assumption is based on this post he made in the R1a comments:
Davidski:
@zardos
Yeah, the abstract describes pretty well the results that I've seen from the paper.
Expect a lot of the Romans to cluster well south of the early Italic individuals, even from south central Italy (Samnites), and basically among modern Cretans, Sicilians and Cypriots. Quite a few of the Romans, especially the late ones, also cluster with Middle Eastern groups.
The one thing I don't get is why so few of the Romans overlap with Mycenaeans. Most of them are shifted east/northeast compared to Mycenaeans, and so overlap strongly with modern Greeks. But of course modern Greeks have a lot of Slavic ancestry.
I'm hoping that the paper explains this in some detail, instead of simply claiming that many Romans were of Greek descent because they cluster with modern Greeks.
https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1184555324289757184
I think that might be a twitter user that replied, who has their account set to private. I don't have a twitter account to log-in to, however, to see."This tweet is unavailable". What happened?
I think that might be a twitter user that replied, who has their account set to private. I don't have a twitter account to log-in to, however, to see.
I took the screen shot 5 mins after it was posted.
but where is the link to the paper ?
or razib just posted the words
ancient rome 2358 poster wow
Razib's post saying "wow" without showing a picture of the poster or hinting what's on it is a bad sign
It's stuff like this that makes me ignore autosomal interpretations. Everything is simplified to an extend that it sounds stupid. Everything North-Eastern is Slavic and everything North-Western is Celtic.
Thank God nobody said ancient Romans were ancient Greeks with a bit of Slavic in them.
Razib Khan on the poster:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/10/21/open-thread-10-21-2019/#comments
Thanks, Jovialis. Now, that makes sense, but then Khan has assiduously pursued his interest in ancient history and particularly Roman history, just showing that STEM people don't need to be morons when it comes to everything but math and science. He can put the information into historical context, which I don't think the authors themselves did.
As to the Etruscans,I really want to see if the bozos at anthrogenica will admit they were completely and utterly wrong about them, and, if they have the decency to apologize about the constant playing of the "race card" against anyone who argued against the whole migration from Anatolia in the first millenium fantasy.
I won't be holding my breath, however.
Oh, and their fantasy that the genetics "changed back" because of the Germanic invasions is bunk as well. All the Lombard dna we've seen is U106. Add in I1 for other Germanics and you still have a very small percentage of Italians descending from them in the male line. There just weren't enough Germanics for big changes, just as there weren't enough Indo-Europeans for big changes before that, and, of course. the migrations of the Indo-Europeans were matched by Bronze Age migrations from the east. All as I've always said.
Thankfully, because that would be ludicrous.
North-East of Mycenaeans is exactly where I plot, and I have no traceable Slavic ancestry.
Of all Europeans, with the exception of Sardinians and Finno-Ugric people; I have the least in common with Slavs, generally.
Also, as I have previously mentioned by the late Republic/ Early Imperial era, the mixing of primarily these two groups possibly created a genetic synthesis, which enriched Europe, during colonization of conquered lands.
This thread has been viewed 57915 times.