Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 154

Thread: Magna Graecia

  1. #51
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    2 members found this post helpful.
    This is pure speculation on my part, but I think these may represent R1, R437, and R850:


  2. #52
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    R1 people imo could represent steppe like people that went to Italy, and didn't mix with copper age central Italians who had a WHG resurgence, like the ancestors of Etruscans and Latins.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    29-08-21
    Posts
    40


    Country: Bulgaria



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    This is not my profile, or analysis; I didn't think of it.

    You should write the authors of Olalde et al. 2021, if you have points you want to make about their analysis. They are usually good at getting back to people.
    And you should write to the authors of that paper below, and don’t get me wrong but I am very confident in what I know and write including that science is used for politics very often. So here at that paper
    a combinatorial approach is used where information from history, linguistics and genetics complement each other.

    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/11/12/1491/htm

    You can't change reality with ridiculous papers that come out wrong in advance and set inadequate conclusions without the support of linguistics and history. Genetics in itself proves nothing, because Slavic is spoken by Asians and Turks today ... unless we want to make the Finns the first Slavs where it went according to some "scientists" then I think the direction is just absurd as the toilet paper / papers with which
    they think they will distort the truth.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    29-08-21
    Posts
    40


    Country: Bulgaria



    …even if all the history books are burned, the language remains, and it is sufficient proof, and it does not support your theories, but the reality which corresponds with my knowledge.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,033

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Some things just don't change huh Jovialis... Wonder if you wrote to the Max Plank institute?

    Selectively picking angles and claiming your point is uncontested yet again. Olade, I wonder if they had a graphic where Albanians and Greeks legit overlaped Balkan IA? Why not pick that one to make a point? Ah no Slovenia IA... as if that has anything to do with any of these points anyways.
    I wonder if you know the difference on a PCA between an Albanian and a Romanian cluster...
    If as you claim Kuline was the proxy, why was Kuline not used but Mordovian and Russian?

    There is more to this than one can say about it. At least at this very moment. But lets not act so hypocritical depending on the point we are arguing and on the thread.

    I stand by our Bulgarian user, despite not understanding all the nuance he is using, it is not as simple as people would hope it is.
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    Franz Kafka

  6. #56
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,810


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blablabla View Post
    Who is the "Slavic" profile here?
    And when you say Slavic, you must to be 100 % sure that he is the source of the language, and not some Turk, Finno-Ugric, Baltic...who is Slavicized, because today the term refers only to a language family.
    Language is not an appropriate barometer for genetic signature. That is a principle of modern genetics which it would behoove all newcomers to learn.

    Look at the Etruscans and the Latins. They are very similar genetically and yet they speak wildly different languages. Or look at the Basques. Once again, you have people who are a mix of Anatolian farmer and steppe who don't speak an Indo-European language. Then there are Hungarians, who speak a language from Central Asia, the language of their conquerors, and yet there's virtually no Central Asian in them.

    They too had built up a mythology based on their language, seeing themselves as descendants of the Magyars, and yet it was all disproven by dna. I don't see them crying about it, at least not here.

    As for Francis Drake's implication that there were no Slavic speaking people in the far north, he's completely wrong. You don't need to do any heavy duty research in Journals to learn that. Heck, even a rudimentary knowledge of the tree of Indo-European languages would tell you that. The predecessor of the Slavic languages isn't called Balto-Slavic for nothing. Even a Wiki free of the usual tinkering would have told you that.

    "The Novgorod Slavs, Slovenes or Ilmen Slavs (Russian: Ильменские слове́не, Il'menskiye slovene) were the northernmost tribe of the Early East Slavs, which inhabited the shores of Lake Ilmen and the basin of the rivers of Volkhov, Lovat, Msta, and the upper stream of the Mologa River in the 8th to 10th centuries. The Slovenes were native to the region around Novgorod.[1] There is a belief among researchers that Novgorod is one of the regions that are the original home / Urheimat of Russians and Slavic tribes.[2]Like all Eastern Slavs in Russian lands or in today's Russia the Ilmen Slavs had own characteristics. Ancestors of the Ilmen Slavs who settled in Finnic areas were coming from the Severians and the Polabian Slavs as evident by language and traditions (see old Novgorod dialect and Gostomysl for examples). They settled mostly Finnic areas in Northern Russia, moving along the major waterways, until they met the southward expansion of the Krivich in the modern-day Yaroslavl Oblast.[3] "

    So, to reiterate, the authors of the paper on the Danubian Limes were NOT, repeat NOT saying that the urheimat of the Slavic peoples was on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Slavic tribes did, however, move to those far northern areas. Nor did they say it was precisely those Slavic tribes which migrated south to settle in the Balkans. In the absence of a more proximate source which provided a reasonable fit, they chose people from those areas because they would be the most free of non-Slavic ancestry picked up en route to the Balkans. These papers have to be read carefully, including the Supplement. Of course one can disagree with their methodology or conclusions; I do it all the time. FIRST, however, you have to understand precisely what they're SAYING.

    Now, people may well want to wait for a more proximate source in both space and time for the modeling of the impact of the "Slavs" or, more precisely perhaps, Slavic speakers, on the Balkans. That's fine. However, don't go making claims that the people they used to measure Slavic input are Finns. That's just blatantly false.

    I really don't understand if the problem here is lack of understanding of the English language, or just lack of reading comprehension in general. Either way, if this material is too difficult for some people to understand, you'd think they'd have the self awareness to refrain from posting and demonstrating that to the whole world. Well, that was hyperbolic. :) Let's say they should have the self awareness to refrain from showing their inability to understand scientific papers to the entire internet pop gen community.



    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  7. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    887


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    This is pure speculation on my part, but I think these may represent R1, R437, and R850:
    One colony in Apulia was formed by Spartans (Taras), if we only had 2 or 3 samples. It would end so many discussions.

  8. #58
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Some things just don't change huh Jovialis...
    Yeah, facts!

  9. #59
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by ihype02 View Post
    One colony in Apulia was formed by Spartans (Taras), if we only had 2 or 3 samples. It would end so many discussions.
    I wish a study on this colony could be made. But also the people who lived there before them.

  10. #60
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Some things just don't change huh Jovialis... Wonder if you wrote to the Max Plank institute?

    Selectively picking angles and claiming your point is uncontested yet again. Olade, I wonder if they had a graphic where Albanians and Greeks legit overlaped Balkan IA? Why not pick that one to make a point? Ah no Slovenia IA... as if that has anything to do with any of these points anyways.
    I wonder if you know the difference on a PCA between an Albanian and a Romanian cluster...
    If as you claim Kuline was the proxy, why was Kuline not used but Mordovian and Russian?

    There is more to this than one can say about it. At least at this very moment. But lets not act so hypocritical depending on the point we are arguing and on the thread.

    I stand by our Bulgarian user, despite not understanding all the nuance he is using, it is not as simple as people would hope it is.
    I am not being a polemic in my views, I am citing studies that support my arguments. Naturally, people will disagree with other studies, as you do with Olalde et al. 2021. That's your opinion.

  11. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    29-08-21
    Posts
    40


    Country: Bulgaria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Language is not an appropriate barometer for genetic signature. That is a principle of modern genetics which it would behoove all newcomers to learn.

    Look at the Etruscans and the Latins. They are very similar genetically and yet they speak wildly different languages. Or look at the Basques. Once again, you have people who are a mix of Anatolian farmer and steppe who don't speak an Indo-European language. Then there are Hungarians, who speak a language from Central Asia, the language of their conquerors, and yet there's virtually no Central Asian in them.

    They too had built up a mythology based on their language, seeing themselves as descendants of the Magyars, and yet it was all disproven by dna. I don't see them crying about it, at least not here.

    As for Francis Drake's implication that there were no Slavic speaking people in the far north, he's completely wrong. You don't need to do any heavy duty research in Journals to learn that. Heck, even a rudimentary knowledge of the tree of Indo-European languages would tell you that. The predecessor of the Slavic languages isn't called Balto-Slavic for nothing. Even a Wiki free of the usual tinkering would have told you that.

    "The Novgorod Slavs, Slovenes or Ilmen Slavs (Russian: Ильменские слове́не, Il'menskiye slovene) were the northernmost tribe of the Early East Slavs, which inhabited the shores of Lake Ilmen and the basin of the rivers of Volkhov, Lovat, Msta, and the upper stream of the Mologa River in the 8th to 10th centuries. The Slovenes were native to the region around Novgorod.[1] There is a belief among researchers that Novgorod is one of the regions that are the original home / Urheimat of Russians and Slavic tribes.[2]Like all Eastern Slavs in Russian lands or in today's Russia the Ilmen Slavs had own characteristics. Ancestors of the Ilmen Slavs who settled in Finnic areas were coming from the Severians and the Polabian Slavs as evident by language and traditions (see old Novgorod dialect and Gostomysl for examples). They settled mostly Finnic areas in Northern Russia, moving along the major waterways, until they met the southward expansion of the Krivich in the modern-day Yaroslavl Oblast.[3] "

    So, to reiterate, the authors of the paper on the Danubian Limes were NOT, repeat NOT saying that the urheimat of the Slavic peoples was on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Slavic tribes did, however, move to those far northern areas. Nor did they say it was precisely those Slavic tribes which migrated south to settle in the Balkans. In the absence of a more proximate source which provided a reasonable fit, they chose people from those areas because they would be the most free of non-Slavic ancestry picked up en route to the Balkans. These papers have to be read carefully, including the Supplement. Of course one can disagree with their methodology or conclusions; I do it all the time. FIRST, however, you have to understand precisely what they're SAYING.

    Now, people may well want to wait for a more proximate source in both space and time for the modeling of the impact of the "Slavs" or, more precisely perhaps, Slavic speakers, on the Balkans. That's fine. However, don't go making claims that the people they used to measure Slavic input are Finns. That's just blatantly false.

    I really don't understand if the problem here is lack of understanding of the English language, or just lack of reading comprehension in general. Either way, if this material is too difficult for some people to understand, you'd think they'd have the self awareness to refrain from posting and demonstrating that to the whole world. Well, that was hyperbolic. :) Let's say they should have the self awareness to refrain from showing their inability to understand scientific papers to the entire internet pop gen community.

    Russians were not even Slavic speaking but Turkic and Ugro- Finnic…so your points are not taken.
    R1a and R1b are not original IE markers so get over it, that is the explanation for the Etruscans nothing else

  12. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    29-08-21
    Posts
    40


    Country: Bulgaria



    Everything is so badly concocted in these papers you pointed that it even goes to elementary simplicity / idiocy. Do you understand that there is no change in the language of the Balkans with the arrival of these Balto-Finns, or should I draw it for you so that you understand the absurdity of your statements?
    There is no emergence of a new language in the 5th or 6th or any other later period in the Balkans. You and the clappers hang on in the air with this topic connected to the ill-conceived lie about the “Slavicization” of the Balkans. Everyone leaves a trace behind and their presence, but not the Slavs. They are attested first on Danube, so what kind of Slavs are you talking about, coming from where?

  13. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    R1 people imo could represent steppe like people that went to Italy, and didn't mix with copper age central Italians who had a WHG resurgence, like the ancestors of Etruscans and Latins.
    Is this "R1" sample on G25? I can't find him anywhere.

  14. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Red sea ancestry is not a legitimate term, it means nothing. I don't see why Red sea ancestry is considered to be a source of anything, considering how deeply mixed a population form that place would be.

    The same goes for Levantine. They are predominately, Anatolian_N, mixed with Iran_N, mixed with paleolithic Morroccan Hunter-gatherer dna. These ancestries can be found in Europe too, but at much different percentage distributions.

    I have demonstrated in other threads that these places are not sources of genetic monolithic ancestry, like that of Anatolia, or Iran.

    The pulse of CHG would be likely related to Anatolian/Iran_N admixed populations come out of Anatolia.

    R850 clusters with Anatolia_IA.

    It is not about being offended, it is about looking at the evidence and being accurate. I don't give a crap if I have some ancestors that could have come from the middle east in more recent times.

    Furthermore, I will reassert the fact that the same CHG in southern Italians, also likely went to Albanians as well, as other southern Europeans.

    Raveane et al. 2018 also shows a Anatolain_BA like signal in Albanians, so again, the reason why your Iron Age ancestors were like modern Southern Italians, is because of the CHG pulse that affected the Balkans, including Italy. As noted by Razib Khan.
    1. Yeah, I know Albanians/Iron-Age Albanians had elevated CHG compared to basques for example, Balkans IA and Myceaneans were on a more eastern cline already compared to the rest of Europe. No disagreement with this fact.

    2. It's not true Levant_N and Natufians are that similar to Anatolia_N, and R850 shows a lot of direct natufian. Natufian is not just Anatolian_N + Morrocan, it also had significantly more basal eurasian (Dzuduana ancestry).

  15. #65
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    1. Yeah, I know Albanians/Iron-Age Albanians had elevated CHG compared to basques for example, Balkans IA and Myceaneans were on a more eastern cline already compared to the rest of Europe. No disagreement with this fact.

    2. It's not true Levant_N and Natufians are that similar to Anatolia_N, and R850 shows a lot of direct natufian. Natufian is not just Anatolian_N + Morrocan, it also had significantly more basal eurasian (Dzuduana ancestry).
    Levant_N is not similar to Anatola_N, they have some overlap, but that where the similarity ends. This is elementary.

    Also, there is no indication that R850 has "direct Natufian" in the study. That's just a false statement.

    Please read the studies.

  16. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Also, a huge issue with this modeling is that you are taking samples from different eras, some of which overlap. It is not the way I would have done it.

    Nevertheless,

    Occam's Razor... How do you apply it to samples we do not even have for the South? Sorry to say it, but your argument to use Occam's razor with no evidence is somewhat odd to me. Especially when I have already confirmed to you there is more nuance to the scenario. Furthermore, the fact that you are using non-scientific terminology isn't making me feel confident about your assessment. No matter, we are all here to learn.

    My model is fine:

    Bulgarian Iron-Age (thracian reference), Rus sunghir medieval (slavic), Empuries I8215 (ancient greek without anatolian (plots between BGR_IA and Myceanean), Logkas (high affinity tumulus/Illyrian like reference, this always gets chosen over Croatia_IA for me), Rome_Imperial (roman cosmopolitan adxmiture).

    What's your actual problem with the sources? You have to use different eras because well ukrainian-like people did not exist during Bulgaria Iron-Ages time. In Olaide 2021 they literally used Empuriote + Russian.

  17. #67
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    My model is fine:

    Bulgarian Iron-Age (thracian reference), Rus sunghir medieval (slavic), Empuries I8215 (ancient greek without anatolian (plots between BGR_IA and Myceanean), Logkas (high affinity tumulus/Illyrian like reference, this always gets chosen over Croatia_IA for me), Rome_Imperial (roman cosmopolitan adxmiture).

    What's your actual problem with the sources? You have to use different samples because well ukrainian-like people did not exist during Bulgaria Iron-Ages time. In Olaide 2021 they literally used Empuriote + Russian.
    Look, you see to think Anatolia_N and Levant_N is one in the same, you are mistaken.

    You can model yourself however you want. (literally...)

  18. #68
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    Natufian is not just Anatolian_N + Morrocan, it also had significantly more basal eurasian (Dzuduana ancestry).
    The Lazaridis Pre-print shows they are 27% taforalt-like (Morroccan_HG), and the rest is Dzuduana. I don't understand the point you are making, but I think you are the one who is confused.

  19. #69
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    Is this "R1" sample on G25? I can't find him anywhere.
    I don't use G25

    R1 should be there though.

    It is the Proto-villanovan from the Antonio et al. 2019 study.

  20. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-03-16
    Posts
    405


    Country: Yugoslavia



    They choose these Slavs from Ingria because no other model could explain the genetic makeup of South Slavs and Balkans in general,Iron age and present day. However the Slav that was found in the Balkans was not Ingrian,so why we care about Ingria concerning the Balkans.This has more to do with mathematics than genetics.We will put little of this and that to have this, which is absurd otherwise is impossible.Very bad assumption because they did not and will probably never found Ingrian Slavs in Balkans.

  21. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    The Lazaridis Pre-print shows they are 27% taforalt-like (Morroccan_HG), and the rest is Dzuduana. I don't understand the point you are making, but I think you are the one who is confused.

    No.... that's not true. Natufians also have WHG ancestry in addittion to their Dzuduana and Nafri admix.

  22. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Levant_N is not similar to Anatola_N, they have some overlap, but that where the similarity ends. This is elementary.

    Also, there is no indication that R850 has "direct Natufian" in the study. That's just a false statement.

    Please read the studies.


    In G25 he has 12% Natufian, here is the EG K13

    R850_Lazio_Rome_Italy_Iron_Age,11.28,5.60,21.22,17 .29,32.58,9.69,0.00,0.86,1.06,0.00,0.00,0.42,0.00

    32.58 East Med,
    9.69 red sea.

    Come on now.

  23. #73
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    R1 people imo could represent steppe like people that went to Italy, and didn't mix with copper age central Italians who had a WHG resurgence, like the ancestors of Etruscans and Latins.


    You can see in the graph, R1 has a noticeably less amount of WHG than the Latini and Etruscans. She is also in the position of modern day Veneto, to the "East".

    Again, this shows there were indeed Slovenian_IA-like (Modern North Italian-like) people in Italy before the Romans. This person was also found by the Adriatic coast. Ergo, a model using these kind of people and Aegean_IA, should be sufficient in partly explaining the Italian-cline.

    In short, R1 + Aegean_IA, would be similar to Slovenian_IA + Aegean_IA; which explains how people who are similar to Tuscans-South Italians, can exist on that space in the PCA between them.

  24. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-09-21
    Posts
    58

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13, E-Z5017
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, South-Gheg
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    You can model yourself however you want. (literally...)



    What kind of statement is that? Lol

    Again, if you have a valid critique of the model please forward it, and if you think I missed a source population feel free to tell me.

  25. #75
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    6,036

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Francis Drake View Post
    In G25 he has 12% Natufian, here is the EG K13

    R850_Lazio_Rome_Italy_Iron_Age,11.28,5.60,21.22,17 .29,32.58,9.69,0.00,0.86,1.06,0.00,0.00,0.42,0.00

    32.58 East Med,
    9.69 red sea.

    Come on now.
    Who cares? These aren't even legitimate components.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •