epoch
Elite member
- Messages
- 781
- Reaction score
- 187
- Points
- 0
I dont feel it's the case, nobody a part amateur interested in those studies are aware of all we are talking here, there is no mass sensitivity applied, there is no need to be neutral.
But a large part of their audience are archaeologist and linguists, who have long standing fierce discussions. As archaeogenetics is delivering data these geneticists may feel it their task to be as neutral as possible. If you'd had a lab specialized in C14 dating you'd also be bloody careful not to present your data with a verdict attached.
I think they know exactly what they are saying, but that's the point what are they saying ? It's an amazing paper, the Caucasus paper, i waited it for so many months, but the semi-conclusion and the fact that this study let more questions than answers about the genetic history of europe is frustrating. Like a lot of people have said, i think they have way more samples and they have constructed a story about PIE before publishing this paper and certainly many other papers. I feel they should give their analysis to how they percieve CHG and genetic interactions, because this study is very different than the previous in their results, i mean CHG in Motala, this is not random, this is not nothing, i believe the result, but i can't believe some guys from south caucasus roaming into scandinavia in mesolithic, so CHG have to have more secrets, what are those secrets ?
I think the Reich lab makes a big mistake in mingling in the Urheimat discussion the way they do. For two reasons, the first being what I said about being neutral. The second is that they don't call it and point to a culture. I think that is because that need for neutrality remains being felt, but it now becomes a constant hinting. This way nobody can counter or take apart their proposal because it's too vague. And yet we are constantly prodded in one direction.