Is there any particular point you're trying to illustrate, Duarte? There's a mountain of information presented there.
No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it
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.
Is there any particular point you're trying to illustrate, Duarte? There's a mountain of information presented there.
No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it
It's indeed useful; I appreciate you doing it.
It's just, as I said, there's a mountain of information there and I thought maybe you wanted to focus our attention on particular aspects to better understand the issues.
Well, a guy who was very obsessed with Sicily and their Levantine connections was banned. I wonder why???? On Anthrogenica it seems, that people right and left are getting banned including one moderator and people who wrote tons of comments for years there. It appears that debating there is like walking on eggshells. What's the point of a forum about genetics when people can't express what they think and debate studies without being so strongly under moderation? A compliment to the moderators from Eupedia who show lots of patience by allowing debates and discourse without heavy moderation and PC.
To me debunking, refuting nonsense, or misconceptions and educating are better than just to ban people with fringe and crazy theories. Of course this only applies to people that are not about trolling for the sake of trolling. Freedom of speech is a great achievement.
The spread of steppe and Iranian-related ancestry in the islands of the western Mediterranean
Source:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites..._NatEcolEvol_WestMediterranean_Supplement.pdf
No, Angela. I posted it as an illustration. If it is not useful, I delete it
the banning is due to insistence with people trying to say that modern nationalistic borders and the populace in these nations existed from today to ancient times without change.
I told people many times, there is barely 1% chance that you can find your line prior to medieval times ...........due to the fact of the roman empire moving people about and the later barbarian invasions ..............do not waste your time
People forget, nationality only began after 1750AD
the banning is due to insistence with people trying to say that modern nationalistic borders and the populace in these nations existed from today to ancient times without change.
I told people many times, there is barely 1% chance that you can find your line prior to medieval times ...........due to the fact of the roman empire moving people about and the later barbarian invasions ..............do not waste your time
People forget, nationality only began after 1750AD
Torzio: I agree with you about trying to trace your direct lineage via Haplogroup analyis. No disagreement there. Also, not disagreement that modern nations today existed going back to Antiquity and beyond without change is also correct. However, I think the research is pretty clear that all the ancient population groups were present in Italy by the 1st Millennium BC, if not earlier, and that documenting a strong and significant genetic affinity and continuity with those ancient Romans, ancient Italians, my case also ancient Greeks and Thracians, does mean something.
More specifically, to me it refutes the notion I had to listen to growing up in the 1970's when BBC's I Claudius came on and the WASP elite in the USA would have you believe the ancient Romans were "English" and the Nordicist would have you believe they looked like the Marvel Comic Book character "Thor" {and I am a big fan the 70's Marvel and DC comic characters for the record, more Batman in DC and Spidey in Marvel].
So on the issue of examining ancient DNA prior to Medieval times, I think it is a worthwhile exercise for scholars in the Genetics field and for non-Genetics scholar enthusiast who love History, archaeology and have a strong tie to their ancestral homeland. I will say this, and I have said it here among friends and co-workers where I live, I felt a stronger connection and more at home in Sicily and Rome when I visited last summer than I do in some parts of the USA. That ticked off some people when I said that but it is honestly how I feel.
of course it is worthwhile to look at ancients in today's modern national borders, but do not think they came from there ..............ancient traded and set up colonies or outposts since the bronze age, people under Roman rule where moved and displaced to other parts of the empire etc .....there is no clear fact on who is who...........
you do not even know if you are a norman that settled in Sicily after the norman invasion or a phoenician that settled in sicily .............
of course it is worthwhile to look at ancients in today's modern national borders, but do not think they came from there ..............ancient traded and set up colonies or outposts since the bronze age, people under Roman rule where moved and displaced to other parts of the empire etc .....there is no clear fact on who is who...........
you do not even know if you are a norman that settled in Sicily after the norman invasion or a phoenician that settled in sicily .............
Thats correct, you never know who you are before the medieval times....you could be original Sicel peopleIt is not important that I know if I am a Norman or not or if I am am a Phoenician or not. For the record, I don't think I am strongly genetically connected to either based on every running genetic distances on the ancient populations that are in Dodecad 12b, MDLP ancients and Eurogenes K13 ancients along with MTA. And not that it would be a bad thing if I was strongly connected to either, but the matter of the fact based on all the analyses that I have done is that I am not.
I am still trying to understand when you say a Norman that settled in Sicily in 12th century or Phoenician that settled in the 9th century BC. So one person settles there and his Y-DNA Haplogroup passes down to me (and Again, my Y-DNA Haplogroup does not indicate either Norman or Phoenician origin), but over the time period, successive generations marry people from that locale, but the time you get down to Me, the autosonal Dna is going to be what it is regardless of the Y-DNA Haplogroup is. I am not going to post my genetic distances (Dodecad, Eurogenes) but my closest distances are everything from Sicily to Rome, even some Central Italian region and modern Greece. That is what it is. MTA ancient DNA analysis is in line with and what Nat Geno, which measures DNA sourced 500 years ago back to 10,000 BC.
My Y-DNA is I-M223, I Haplogroups are about 7-8% in Sicily on average, about 15% in the Western Half. I don't know anything about me being I-M223 other than that is what National Geographic told me when I got my report earlier this year. My research interest has been more on establishing genetic affinity with the regions where My ancestors came from and doing family research to trace back where all my Paternal and Maternal ancestors came from. I have been able with birth, marriage and death records, trace back on several family histories to the late 1700's, and on all back to early 1800's. So as I have noted before, we have different primary research issues.
Again, you have a focus on Y-DNA lineage. I think you yourself told me that with respect to all T Y-DNA Haplogroups, the only person living today that has the Basal T is from Armenia and your line may have started somewhere in ancient Anatolia nearby, etc. However, you on your on account define yourself as Nord-Italian. There are areas of West Africa(Cameroon) that have high levels of R1b, likely due to some early back migration from I guess Iberia. Yet, autosonal DNA and where modern Cameroon West Africans cluster, none of them, or any other modern West African,, with Y-DNA R1b clusters with Europeans with R1b.
Thats correct, you never know who you are vefore the medieval times....you could be original Sicel people
I told you that T came from south central asia and it split off from halpogroup LT...i do not have an issue with this
Basal T are 3 only from Bhutan, Germany and Armenia.....i cannir see any link here
We do have one proto-Villanovan sample, and he isn't all that far from some of us (according to one analysis I'm at a distance of 6.2 to him, but others are closer), but one sample really isn't enough.
Plus, we're talking about Iron Age. There was quite a span of time since the Italics first entered Italy.
So, another one which is still to be determined.
I agree proto-Villanovian (the one!) was not very far from others, it was just a question. BTW I dont know if there is a consensus about the first appearence of Italics in Italy, and in which precise cultural profile(s), because Ligurians tribes or some close tribes have plaid their role maybe before Italics. I have just observed that this proto-Villanovian seemed far from no region of today Italy, with something like a level autosomes sharing with all regions without clear preference, what would be interesting for a proto-Roman origin. OK it's based on amateur's analysis of distances but?
I think that even before to assimilate some EEF in N-Italy, Italics had spent some time near or in Croatia, where they could have already picked some more EEF not too far from the Iberia Neolithicers genetically. Some phonetic traits of Italic could point towards something ancient 'balkans', even Greek. But we lack well identified Italics of several periods to say anything (before writings, linguistic identification is more game than science, even toponymy uneasy to exploit).
Completely agree. If anyone needed further proof, just look at how abysmally wrong they were about the Etruscans. That's what happens when you completely ignore the archaeology and focus only on the myths of ancient authors because it supports your agenda.
Academics are human, like everyone else, and must have their own biases, but they also have a livelihood to maintain. They can't stray too far from objectivity for very selfish motives. Of course, they're not all equally competent.
Still, much better than some "enthusiast" sitting in his mom's basement obsessing about these things, or worse yet being paid by some shady racist organization.
Torzio: I have tried to be civil and respectful in my posts with you. I did not say you can never determine and know who you were before the Middle ages. That is not what I said. If one shows significant genetic affinity and continuity with ancient populations, then you are indeed related to those peoples. Nobody is an original 1 population. I have Neanderthal admixture, like you surely do, and like all "eurasians" that doesn't mean I am a "Neanderthal" How can you say today you are from "one source population". You are not, nor I am I, but you can estimate who you are genetically similar to based on what your relation to ancient European samples. And I don't have an issue that I am Y-DNA Haplogroup I, and although basal I is more common North of the Alps and likely originated there, I do not share close genetic affinity with modern Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc, etc or even Central European Austrians, Germans, etc. I share close genetic affinity with modern Italians, Sicily-South-Central first and foremost, and modern Greeks next, and ancient Romans and Greeks as well. Thus, it is correct to say that I my personal genetic DNA shows a continuity with ancient times down to today. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand, unless there are some "political reasons" or other reasons you have a hard time with this.
I do not know what you are upset with.............I never discuss or question anybody theory or knowledge of who they are or where they came from, that is their business , I only give options to check or not ...............you must see this in reading/discussing what Salento and I are, same ydna down to same snp, yet we differ in admixture , I doubt we will get better than this
About Etruscans, there was never actual historical evidence that indicates their Anatolian origin. The work of Herodotus was based on hypothesis and not actual recorded data, it is highly unlikely that he could've known anything about proto-Etruscans, centuries before he was born. So that's a difference.
So what does that tell you?
This thread has been viewed 87551 times.