If you feel I misrepresented something, please quote the relevant part of any of my posts and I will explain.
Great questions. Every time you disagree with someone your tactic is to make it personal, and then give infractions, ban, or delete posts if the other person replies in kind.
The "tail into the Levant" phrase I cannot find, but obviously the Near Eastern component was significantly diminished. This does not mean that those people dissappeared altogether. Both the Rome and the Etruscan papers model Late Antiquity samples as a mixture between Imperial and Central European (or Central European-like) ones.
Happily.
This is what you posted: "
However this shift was far more dramatic than the an admixture between BA/IA Italians and BA/IA Aegeans would produce. Most of it is attributed to Levantine and Anatolian components. Four papers from Italy, Spain and the Balkans have already brought evidence of this. So BA/IA samples cannot be compared to modern populations without first accounting for the eastern shift in the early Roman period and then the western shift in the late one."
You then quoted the Danubian Limes paper:
"
Balkans
4- The other major cluster (44% of the samples from Viminacium between 1-250 CE) is represented by individuals who projected towards ancient and present-day Eastern Mediterranean groups in PCA (Figure 1A), close to ancient individuals from Rome during Imperial times. Their ancestry can be modelled as deriving deeply from Chalcolithic Western Anatolian groups (Figure 2; Supplementary section 12.2), and we refer to this cluster as the Near Eastern-related cluster. The same signal of arrivals individuals with Anatolian/Near Eastern ancestral origins is also evident in Rome during the same period, consistent with largescale gene-flow originating from the major eastern urban centers of the Empire (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Smyrna and Alexandria). These results suggest that immigration from the east was a common feature across urban centers in the Roman Empire, including in border areas and large cities/military outposts such as Viminacium."This is
IRRELEVANT to your point because the paper makes clear those Near Eastern people did not influence modern Balkan genetics. The shift for them happened earlier, not in the Imperial Age.
How can you still not get it?
Am I supposed to say," great job"?
How am I supposed to respond? Either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it, or you're playing dishonest games. You're lucky I settled on didn't read these papers or understand them, because if I believed you were playing dishonest games you'd be banned.
If you were a newbie who was honestly confused I would respond differently. Instead, there's this totally misplaced arrogance about ludicrously incorrect comments.
Also, if you don't know about Antonio et al's discussion about the tail into the Levant and how it disappeared, then once again there is proof you didn't read the paper carefully.
Also, are you pretending you don't know what "
drastically shrunk" means????
I'm losing my patience. Leave well enough alone, and only respond once you've re-read the papers.