Sicilians pre-Greek colonization

That's completely wrong.

This is a direct quote from the abstract of the paper as published in Nature. As in everything he writes, it couldn't be more clear.

3gYZd1T.png


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318862250_Genetic_origins_of_the_Minoans_and_Mycenaeans

So, as I've said dozens of times over the years, whether the Greek speakers came via the Balkans, or from the steppe through the Caucasus and across Anatolia, as with the Drews hypothesis, of course they have some steppe.

Why does it matter which way they came? The Greek language is in the same family as Armenian so the more plausible conclusion is that they lived close to each other. For me the more interesting question is the timing.
 
Shahmiri: As for your post 218 nice information. As for Y-DNA Haplogroup T there are is one excellent poster here (Salento) who is Y-DNA T that is much more knowledgeable about that particular Haplogroup. So maybe he can chime in on that issue. As for the Elymians in NW Sicily, we don't have any clear DNA from a period that would coincide with purely "Elymian period" To find out exactly who the Elymians are I would think we would need DNA from Trapani and Palermo Provinces ancient humans in the period Post the one in Fernandes et al 2020 and pre 1,000 BC before Pheonician sea/city ports were set up and the Greek colonization which reached as far as towns like Segesta and Selinunte in Trapani. The best place for these samples to come from would be Erice and Segesta which were two of the most important Elymian cities.

As for Indo-European language, I have read enough on the Elymians (have visited both Segesta and modern Erice) and have seen enough research indicating the Elymians possibly spoke an Indo-European language, but that is not 100% conclusive yet. So need 2 things in my view, 1) Archaeological finds that are clearly Elymian with writing and 2) DNA samples that are clearly from an Elymian Settlement before 1,000 BC.
 
As you read in my article, the important question is that the names of ancient cities were from the names of gods or vice versa? Is it really possible that first Elamites built a city with the name of Susa and then Sumerians gave a name to Elamite god from the name of their city and then Elamite worshipped this god?!

It's not an article, rather a personal draft.
Anyway, there's no particular issue with Sumerians giving a name like Nin.Shushinak "god of Susa".
I have the feeling you're confusing the name itself (which is Sumerian) and the god (which is probably Elamite).


Anyway the name of god is Insus/Inshush, not Ninshush, compare to Proto-Germanic *ansuz "god, deity" from Proto-Indo-European *h₂énsus "god, vital force", from *h₂ens- (“to engender, beget”): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/ansuz#Etymology

*ansu- is not an Indo-European word, but a borrowing from some Caucasic source akin to present-day NWC *ancw- "god".
Note that the Zoroastrian reform promoted a Caucasic god Ahura and downgrading IEan gods to the status of demons.

i4x0_hensus.jpg


Learn some Indo-European.

I know PIE well enough to read between the lines.
 
Shahmiri: As for your post 218 nice information. As for Y-DNA Haplogroup T there are is one excellent poster here (Salento) who is Y-DNA T that is much more knowledgeable about that particular Haplogroup. So maybe he can chime in on that issue. As for the Elymians in NW Sicily, we don't have any clear DNA from a period that would coincide with purely "Elymian period" To find out exactly who the Elymians are I would think we would need DNA from Trapani and Palermo Provinces ancient humans in the period Post the one in Fernandes et al 2020 and pre 1,000 BC before Pheonician sea/city ports were set up and the Greek colonization which reached as far as towns like Segesta and Selinunte in Trapani. The best place for these samples to come from would be Erice and Segesta which were two of the most important Elymian cities.

As for Indo-European language, I have read enough on the Elymians (have visited both Segesta and modern Erice) and have seen enough research indicating the Elymians possibly spoke an Indo-European language, but that is not 100% conclusive yet. So need 2 things in my view, 1) Archaeological finds that are clearly Elymian with writing and 2) DNA samples that are clearly from an Elymian Settlement before 1,000 BC.

The Haplogroup in the post is a T1a, I’m a T1a2 ..., they say that the difference between T1a1 and T1a2 is comparable to the difference between R1a and R1b.

Torzio has been researching the y T Haplogroup for a very long time and he probably has all the answers about it :)
 
The overlap between CHG and Iran Neo is so large, or, to put it another way, the differences are so minor, that to make a big deal of it is quibbling, imo. It's just that some hobbyists and bloggers can't bear the idea that the ancient ancestors they choose to glorify, the Indo Europeans, should have any ancestry which by its very name advertises that it's from the Near East.

Problem is, the genetics doesn't lie. CHG is vast majority Iran Neo. We've known this for a long time, and the most recent papers confirm it. That's why, imo, it's so difficult to distinguish the two in modern people, and why I have an issue with some of the modeling.

2b3pjUS.png

That's actually what I suspected. They also seemed to place a lot of importance on a certain uniparental markers , making arguments such as the ancestry can't be from Iran_N because no mtdna U7 was found in the steppe. I just didn't want to accuse them of having an agenda without much concrete proof. I also saw people arguing there was AASI in Iran_N but not in CHG but that graph disproves that idea. They either both have it or they both don't since CHG is just Iran_N with a little EHG and WHG.
 
The Haplogroup in the post is a T1a, I’m a T1a2 ..., they say that the difference between T1a1 and T1a2 is comparable to the difference between R1a and R1b.

Torzio has been researching the y T Haplogroup for a very long time and he probably has all the answers about it :)

Salento: Thanks for chiming in, that is why I deferred to the expert that has some humility.(y)
 
Last edited:
Why does it matter which way they came? The Greek language is in the same family as Armenian so the more plausible conclusion is that they lived close to each other. For me the more interesting question is the timing.

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me or to anyone with any sense.

However, there is a segment of the hobbyist community which would prefer to see the Mycenaeans as "non-European", i.e. not as European as they are, sort of transplanted Armenians.

There are others who, as Near Easterners, wish to claim them and their accomplishments for themselves.

Stupid, useless, typical anthrofora nonsense.

On the other hand, posts which are completely inaccurate in terms of the claims made about the findings of academic papers should be corrected,don't you agree?

So, yes, Lazaridis found STEPPE in the Mycenaeans, although not in the Minoans, but he didn't come to a conclusion as to whether the route was from the steppe west and down through the Balkans, which I still think is more likely although I'm not married to the idea, or from the steppe through the Caucasus, and across Anatolia to the Aegean, which would be the Drews' Greeks from the east hypothesis.
 
It doesn't matter in the slightest to me or to anyone with any sense.

However, there is a segment of the hobbyist community which would prefer to see the Mycenaeans as "non-European", i.e. not as European as they are, sort of transplanted Armenians.

There are others who, as Near Easterners, wish to claim them and their accomplishments for themselves.

Stupid, useless, typical anthrofora nonsense.

On the other hand, posts which are completely inaccurate in terms of the claims made about the findings of academic papers should be corrected,don't you agree?

So, yes, Lazaridis found STEPPE in the Mycenaeans, although not in the Minoans, but he didn't come to a conclusion as to whether the route was from the steppe west and down through the Balkans, which I still think is more likely although I'm not married to the idea, or from the steppe through the Caucasus, and across Anatolia to the Aegean, which would be the Drews' Greeks from the east hypothesis.

I am surprised from you Angela, from where Mycenaean came from it should matter, why? To understand history, language, genetics. Drews views seems convincing to me and genetics so far does not contradict them.
If you consider Drew hobbyist....than there is nothing more to say, I rest my argument here. In this forum I always have said that Mycenaean were too advanced to have come directly from steppe. In addition their lack of tumulus adds to this argument.... but this remain an open discussion. Lazaridis left it open as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
I am surprised from you Angela, from where Mycenaean came from it should matter, why? To understand history, language, genetics. Drews views seems convincing to me and genetics so far does not contradict them.
If you consider Drew hobbyist....than there is nothing more to say, I rest my argument here. In this forum I always have said that Mycenaean were too advanced to have come directly from steppe. In addition their lack of tumulus adds to this argument.... but this remain an open discussion. Lazaridis left it open as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Blevins, you always misunderstand me. Of course I care where the Mycenaeans came from in terms of genetics and history. What I meant is that I have no agenda about it; I'm not emotionally committed to either alternative. Whatever it turns out to be is fine with me.

Also, of course Drews is not a hobbyist. He's a respected scholar. However, until we have genetic proof it's still a hypothesis, or use the word theory or argument if you prefer. Also, you have to understand that the Drews "theory" isn't saying that the Mycenaeans don't have steppe; it's saying the "route" was from the steppe, through the Caucasus and across Anatolia.

It doesn't matter which route was taken. The autosomal signature of the Mycenaeans remains the same: they had very little steppe.

I completely agree with you that their culture is too sophisticated and advanced to only have steppe influence, but don't forget that they also have Iran Neo like ancestry, as do the Minoans, who had a sophisticated civilization before them, which came from influence from Anatolia. They adopted a lot of their culture from the Minoans, and who knows, perhaps they got the Iran Neo like genes in part from admixture with them.
 
I see a lot of models saying Iran_Neo has excess ENA above what can be explained by ANE in addition to AASI. Is that actually true? I haven't seen any Europeans really score AASI admixture which would be the case if that was true.
 
Why are we polluting every thread with wild theories about the Greeks? Let's just wait for more DNA studies and of course archaeology.
 
It's not an article, rather a personal draft.

You are right but I have written a real article about it in Persian.

Anyway, there's no particular issue with Sumerians giving a name like Nin.Shushinak "god of Susa".
I have the feeling you're confusing the name itself (which is Sumerian) and the god (which is probably Elamite).

*ansu- is not an Indo-European word, but a borrowing from some Caucasic source akin to present-day NWC *ancw- "god".
Note that the Zoroastrian reform promoted a Caucasic god Ahura and downgrading IEan gods to the status of demons.

I also believe in the cultural contacts between Sumerians/Caucasians and Indo-Europeans, it is really difficult to say which one is the source of another one, but saying Inshushinak is a Sumerian word with the meaning of "god of Susa" solves nothing, linguists generally believe the word Susa is from the local city deity Inshushinak, not vice versa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa#Name

Anyway in another semi-article: https://www.academia.edu/41979799 I have mentioned that another Indo-European word for "god" with the original meaning of "sky, heaven" *danǵʰ-, *dinw-, *deiw- (Lithuanian dangus, Latin deus, Sanskrit deva, ...) really relates to Sumerian dingir "god, sky, heaven".
 
Why are we polluting every thread with wild theories about the Greeks? Let's just wait for more DNA studies and of course archaeology.

Discussion of Mycenaean here is probably out of place, but for Europe they are one of the first civilizations, so it is hard to bypass them. Lazaridis has answered a lot of questions in his study, but he left a couple of questions opened for further studies.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum
 
Pardon me, are you referring to my post? Are you denying that there has been changes to Iranians since the neolithic? Came up with what? SSA in post-middle ages is a fact. Natufian admixture into Iran is real.There are studies that prove what I said. Also, if you want to challenge what I said, why don't you be up front about it. Unless I am misunderstanding your post.

i was referring to you and Dupidh. i won't deny there have been changes, but why mention SSA admixture which is probably one of the least important ones in iran? why not anatolian neolithic or steppe? Do you have numbers for SSA in iran or for the other admixtures in modern iranians? why are you so sure that iranian jews were able to conserve the iranian pre-medieval ancestry better than the iranian population at large? you make it sound as if that is because of SSA admixture in iranians that is absent in iranian jews. imo in the end the iranian population at large doesn't matter but specific subpopulations and even the most conserved ones will be shifted. But still, do you have a source for these claims?
 
Last edited:
Plato on Sicily:
[
[FONT=&quot]353ε[/FONT]][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τούτου[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]κινδυνεύσει[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]καὶ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τὸ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τυραννικὸν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἅπαν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]καὶ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τὸ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]δημοτικὸν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]γένος[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]ἥξει[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]δέ[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]ἐάνπερ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τῶν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]εἰκότων[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]γίγνηταί[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τι[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]καὶ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἀπευκτῶν[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]σχεδὸν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]εἰς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἐρημίαν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τῆς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Ἑλληνικῆς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]φωνῆς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Σικελία[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]πᾶσα[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]Φοινίκων[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Ὀπικῶν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]μεταβαλοῦσα[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]εἴς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τινα[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]δυναστείαν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]καὶ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]κράτος[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]τούτων[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]δὴ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]χρὴ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]πάσῃ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]προθυμίᾳ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]πάντας[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τοὺς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Ἕλληνας[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τέμνειν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]φάρμακον[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]εἰ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]μὲν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]δή[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τις[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ὀρθότερον[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἄμεινόν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τ᾽[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἔχει[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τοῦ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ὑπ᾽[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ἐμοῦ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]ῥηθησομένου[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]ἐνεγκὼν[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]εἰς[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]τὸ[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]μέσον

[353e] the whole tribe of tyrants and democrats alike will be in danger of destruction. But should any of these consequences—likely as they are though lamentable—come to pass, hardly a trace of the Greek tongue will remain in all Sicily, since it will have been transformed into a province or dependency of Phoenicians or Opicians.1 Against this all the Greeks must with all zeal provide a remedy. If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose,

[FONT=&quot]1 Probably some tribes of central Italy, Samnites or Campanians.

There was most likely also a migration of Italic people in Sicily after 800BC. Plato actually visited Sicily.


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 
LINK - If you prefer to see pictures of these tables:

TargetDistance
Anatolia_Barcin_N
EHG_Karelia
Iran_Neo
MAR_EN
Maykop
Natufian
WHG
Yamnaya_RUS
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40620.03016186
92,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
7,4
0,0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40630.03005867
89,2
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
10,8
0,0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40640.03054454
91,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
8,4
0,0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40650.02933668
85,8
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
14,2
0,0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31220.03482724
88,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
12,0
0,0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31230.03204897
77,6
0,0
0,0
1,6
2,4
0,0
9,2
9,2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31240.03682332
76,8
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
9,0
14,2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I78070.04110646
89,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
3,4
0,0
7,0
0,0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I85610.03634092
67,4
6,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
12,4
13,6
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I114420.03899473
81,4
0,0
0,0
1,2
1,2
0,0
7,6
8,6
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I114430.03095006
49,4
0,0
0,0
0,4
0,0
0,0
8,6
41,6
Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe0.05027567
72,0
0,0
0,0
0,2
22,6
0,0
5,2
0,0
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I31250.02619634
76,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
15,2
0,0
8,0
0,2
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I41090.03939586
83,4
0,0
0,0
1,0
9,4
0,0
6,2
0,0
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I38780.02363986
81,0
0,0
0,0
1,8
1,8
0,0
5,8
9,6
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I103720.04711925
81,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
11,6
0,0
7,4
0,0
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I38760.03185393
73,8
0,0
0,0
1,0
11,0
0,0
6,0
8,2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H0.02219327
52,8
0,0
1,8
0,0
15,6
7,4
0,8
21,6
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H0.03396469
48,4
0,0
2,6
0,0
10,6
12,8
0,6
25,0
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H0.02012140
44,6
0,0
4,8
0,0
19,8
10,8
4,0
16,0
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H0.02622899
48,6
0,0
5,8
0,0
8,0
8,6
5,6
23,4
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H0.02486791
47,4
0,0
6,0
2,4
14,4
9,4
3,6
16,8
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H0.02924797
50,0
0,0
4,2
2,2
8,8
8,6
4,4
21,8

*****************************************************

TargetDistance
Anatolia_Barcin_N
EHG_Karelia
GEO_CHG
Iran_Neo
MAR_EN
Natufian
WHG
Yamnaya_RUS
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40620.03016186
92,6
0
0
0
0
0
7,4
0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40630.03005867
89,2
0
0
0
0
0
10,8
0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40640.03054454
91,6
0
0
0
0
0
8,4
0
ITA_Sicily_MN:I40650.02933668
85,8
0
0
0
0
0
14,2
0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31220.03482724
88
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31230.03187045
78,4
0
0
1,8
1,4
0
9,4
9
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I31240.03682332
76,8
0
0
0
0
0
9
14,2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I78070.04120160
91
0
0,6
0
0
0
6,4
2
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I85610.03634053
67,4
6,4
0
0
0
0
12,4
13,8
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I114420.03901785
82
0
0
0
1,2
0
7,4
9,4
ITA_Sicily_EBA:I114430.03095006
49,4
0
0
0
0,4
0
8,6
41,6
Beaker_Sicily_no_steppe0.05084224
80
0
13,4
0,6
0,2
0
4,2
1,6
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I31250.02476793
81,8
0
4,4
4,6
0
0
7,6
1,6
ITA_Sicily_MBA:I41090.03981940
87,2
0
1,8
1,8
0,8
0
5,2
3,2
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I38760.03282856
77,8
0
5,4
0
1
0,4
5
10,4
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I38780.02364671
81,6
0
0,6
0,6
1,8
0
5,8
9,6
ITA_Sicily_LBA:I103720.04686058
86
0
1,2
0
0
0
4,6
8,2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian2H0.02305468
57,8
0
7
3,8
0
8,2
0
23,2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian5H0.03479737
52,8
0
1,2
6,2
0
12,6
0
27,2
Sicilian_East:EastSicilian8H0.02260920
51,4
0
7,8
8,2
0
11,4
3
18,2
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian10H0.02683218
52
0
1,2
8,4
0
8,4
5
25
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian4H0.02621562
52
0
5
9
1,8
10,6
3
18,6
Sicilian_West:WestSicilian7H0.02984338
53,4
0
1,2
6,8
2
9
3,6
24

I seriously doubt these admixtures are correct: there's literally no way that the Natufian component ( who was present in 10-20% in Anatolian) could have changed from virtually 0% to an average of 10% without a similar increase of other ancestral components, given that the "semites" are 50% Iran neolithic themselves( and we have no evidence of a migration from the Levant to Italy after the bronze age); in the face of it, MAR_EN increases in a similar fashion but we have no evidence of a massive migration from north africa to Sicily ( roughly MAR-EN + Natufian would make a 15% contribution from North Africa ), and the biggest flow in this model is that Natufian were present in both Anatolian farmers and MAR_EN, and the former made up as well 50% of the latter, so very likely these are just result of shared ancestral dna now assigned to a pop and now to another, even if there's no direct connection between the two. Also Iran_neolithic seems to me a little bit too low. As always, the fact that you can model a pupulation as made up of this and that ancestral populations doesn't mean it is literally descended from those populations you have used in your model. That's why finer analysis and archeological evidence are a must in order to get a clear picture of what the situation was in the past.
 
Plato on Sicily:
[
353ε]τούτουκινδυνεύσεικαὶτὸτυραννικὸνἅπανκαὶτὸδημοτικὸνγένος, ἥξειδέ, ἐάνπερτῶνεἰκότωνγίγνηταίτικαὶἀπευκτῶν, σχεδὸνεἰςἐρημίαντῆςἙλληνικῆςφωνῆςΣικελίαπᾶσα, ΦοινίκωνὈπικῶνμεταβαλοῦσαεἴςτιναδυναστείανκαὶκράτος. τούτωνδὴχρὴπάσῃπροθυμίᾳπάνταςτοὺςἝλληναςτέμνεινφάρμακον. εἰμὲνδήτιςὀρθότερονἄμεινόντ᾽ἔχειτοῦὑπ᾽ἐμοῦῥηθησομένου, ἐνεγκὼνεἰςτὸμέσον

[353e] the whole tribe of tyrants and democrats alike will be in danger of destruction. But should any of these consequences—likely as they are though lamentable—come to pass, hardly a trace of the Greek tongue will remain in all Sicily, since it will have been transformed into a province or dependency of Phoenicians or Opicians.1 Against this all the Greeks must with all zeal provide a remedy. If, therefore, any man knows of a remedy that is truer and better than that which I am now about to propose,

1 Probably some tribes of central Italy, Samnites or Campanians.

There was most likely also a migration of Italic people in Sicily after 800BC. Plato actually visited Sicily.


Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.
 
Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.
Absolutely. It's just that if old Greeks were like the vast majority of the population in Sicily I doubt Plato would be worried about the Greek language going extinct.
Wars in Sicily were ruthless on all sides, I am really glad I don't live in that time.
 
I seriously doubt these admixtures are correct: there's literally no way that the Natufian component ( who was present in 10-20% in Anatolian) could have changed from virtually 0% to an average of 10% without a similar increase of other ancestral components, given that the "semites" are 50% Iran neolithic themselves( and we have no evidence of a migration from the Levant to Italy after the bronze age); in the face of it, MAR_EN increases in a similar fashion but we have no evidence of a massive migration from north africa to Sicily ( roughly MAR-EN + Natufian would make a 15% contribution from North Africa ), and the biggest flow in this model is that Natufian were present in both Anatolian farmers and MAR_EN, and the former made up as well 50% of the latter, so very likely these are just result of shared ancestral dna now assigned to a pop and now to another, even if there's no direct connection between the two. Also Iran_neolithic seems to me a little bit too low. As always, the fact that you can model a pupulation as made up of this and that ancestral populations doesn't mean it is literally descended from those populations you have used in your model. That's why finer analysis and archeological evidence are a must in order to get a clear picture of what the situation was in the past.

Very well said. In some of the Oracles associated with the Gedmatch calculators I get very small genetic distances with 4 way population mixes that absolutely don't make any sense.
 
Rome, Carthage, the Greeks and the Etruscans were all fighting for territory in the Med., perhaps especially in Sicily. Now all left a huge genetic footprint however.

Its not true about Greeks. Greeks have fought once under Alexander the Great. Even then they were conquered and forced to fight by Macedonians who were not Helens. Greeks were not a unified entity fighting for expansion. They were organized in competing city states who fought among themselves but had no military power to wage campaigns in other countries or territories. Their colonies were created not from military campaigns but through their ability to convince the hosts to accept them (tricks). They radiated their know how rather than imposing it through force, because they had no force., and were a costal people. Greeks never build anything out of sea sight.
Romans were a formidable fighting force for the time, and Carthaginians
 

This thread has been viewed 85950 times.

Back
Top